LIBRARY 

DO.WTIOX   OF 

S  A  M  U  K  1.    A  a  N  E  W  , 


#■ 


|)         Cdse,  Diviaon  /| 


DEFENCE   OF  "OUR  FATHERS," 


AND  OF  THE 


ORIGINAL  ORGANIZATION 


THE    METHODIST   EPISCOPAL    CHURCH, 

AGAINST 

THE    REV.   ALEXANDER   M'CAINE 

AND    OTHERS: 

WITH  HISTORICAL  AND  CRITICAL  NOTICES  OF  EARLY  AMERICAN 
METHODISM. 


BY  JOHN  EMORY,  D.  D. 


"  Multum  refert  ad  retinendam  ecclesiarum  pacem,  inter  ea  quae  jure  divino  prascepta  sunt, 
et  qus  non  sunt,  accurate  distinguere."— Gro<ii/.s. 

"  When  men  have  caused  such  lamentable  divisions  in  the  church,  by  their  several  parties 
and  factions,  it  concerns  them  to  condemn  all  others  besides  themselves,  lest  they  most  of  all 
condemn  themselves  for  making  unnecessary  divisions  in  the  church  of  God." — Stillingfieet. 


FIFTH    EDITION, 


NEW-YORK: 

PUBLISHED  BY  T.  MASON  AND  G.  LANE, 

FOR    THE    METH0DI8T    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    AT    THE    CONFERENCE    OFFICE, 

200   MULBERRY-STREET. 

/.  Collord,  Printer. 
1838. 


CONTENTS 

TO 

A  DEFENCE  OF  "OUR  FATHERS." 


Preface   ^^S^  ^ 

Sec.  I. — Episcopacy      

II.— Sentiments  of  Bishop  White 22 

III.— Mr.  Wesley's  Opinion   28 

IV.— Ordination    ^^ 

v.— Ordination  of  Dr.  Coke   ^^ 

VI.— Dr.  Coke's  Letter  to  Bishop  White 46 

VII.— The  Prayer  Book  of  1784 60 

VIII.— The  Prayer  Book  of  1786 69 

IX.— Bishop   Asbury    "^^ 

X.— Testimonies  of  English  Methodists   95 

XL— Dr.  Coke l^^ 

XII.— Methodist  Episcopacy 105 

XIII.— Title  Bishop    ^ 

XIV.— Organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 116 

XV.— Leaving  Mr.  Wesley's  name  off  the  Minutes 122 

XVI. — Mr.  M'Caine's  Arithmetical  Calculations   133 

XVII. — The  Address  to  General  Washington   136 

XVIII.—"  History  and  Mystery"  of  Mr.  M'Caine's  Inconsistency 145 

XIX.— Union  Society  of  Baltimore ;— Conclusion 147 

APPENDIX. 

No.  I.— Respecting  Dr.  Coke's  Letter  to  Bishop  White 151 

II.— A  Communication  from  the  Rev.  N.  Bangs 153 

III.— The  Mmute  to  obey  Mr.  Wesley 154 


PREFACE        •?h^.   />)B,^  ^         ># 

A  DEFENCE  OF  "OUR  FATHERS." 


The  "  fair"  and  "  honourable"  fame  of  "  our  fathers"  is  a  treasure 
committed  to  our  common  trust ;  in  which  all  who  bear  their  name 
ought  to  feel  an  interest ;  and  to  defend  which  is  our  common  duty. 
The  best  construction  of  which  their  conduct  and  motives  are  susceptible 
was  due  to  them  even  while  alive,  with  opportunities  and  means  to 
explain,  and  to  defend  themselves.  Much  more  is  it  due  in  instituting 
an  inquiry  into  their  history,  now  that  they  are  silenced  in  the  grave, 
and  incapable  of  self-defence.  As  we  would  that  men  should  do  to  us, 
when  death  shall  have  sealed  our  lips,  and  stricken  from  our  hand  the 
ready  pen,  let  us  do  even  so  to  them.  For  the  measure  which  we 
mete  to  others,  in  the  just  retributive  visitations  of  Heaven,  will  be 
meted  to  us  again.  We  should  take  heed,  then,  how,  with  rash  and 
wanton  rudeness,  we  trample  upon  the  ashes  of  deceased  fathers. 

In  the  present  discussion,  however,  we  ask  not  for  charity,  in  the 
cold  sense  of  that  abused  terra ;  nor  that  pity  shall  turn  the  scale  of 
judgment.  We  demand  simple  justice, — sheer  justice.  By  that 
balance  we  agree  that  our  fathers  shall  be  tried.  In  that  crucible  we 
consent  that  both  their  acts  and  their  motives  shall  be  tested.  All  that 
we  ask  for  them,  in  passing  the  ordeal,  is,  the  allowance  of  the  frailty 
inseparablie  from  humanity ;  and  from  which,  with  the  purest  and  best 
intentions,  the  wisest  and  the  holiest  mortals  have  never  been  exempted. 

The  representation  which  Mr.  M'Caine  has  given  of  the  account  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  published  in  Buck's  Theological 
Dictionary,  as  it  regards  myself,  is  wholly  unfounded.  The  editor  of 
that  work  never  was  indebted  to  me  for  that  account :  nor  was  I  aware 
that  it  had  been  imputed  to  me,  till  I  saw  Mr.  M'Caine's  statement.  It 
had  actually  been  published  in  a  former  edition  of  Buck's  Dictionary, 
and  attributed  to  another  hand,  before  I  was  "  Book  Agent,"  or  "  Pub- 
lisher for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church"  at  all.  This  circumstance 
alone  might  have  rendered  the  imputation  of  it  to  me  at  least  "sus- 
picious." In  some  other  cases  Mr.  M'Caine  has  not  deemed  it  a  suffi- 
cient warrant  for  the  assumption  of  facts,  that  he  has  merely  found  them 
stated  in  print.  Had  he  been  equally  suspicious  in  this  instance,  it 
might  have  led  him  to  farther  inquiry  ;  in  which  case  the  means  of  cor- 
rect and  certain  information  were  easily  and  perfectly  within  his 
reach. 


6  PREFACE  TO  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

A  communication  from  my  friend,  the  Rev.  N.  Bangs,  explanatory  of 
that  publication,  and  of  his  book  on  "  Methodist  Episcopacy,"  will  be 
found  in  the  Appendix.  And  in  justice  to  him,  as  Mr.  M'Caine  has 
attacked  that  book,  it  ought  to  be  known  that  Mr.  M'Caine  himself  was 
one  of  the  committee  to  whom  it  was  submitted,  before  its  publication, 
and  by  whom  its  publication  was  recommended.  The  recommendation 
stands  on  record,  attested  by  his  own  hand.  And  whatever  responsi- 
bility may  exist  for  its  doctrines,  or  for  its  official  acceptance  and  pub- 
lication "  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  this  "  reverend  gentle- 
man," I  conceive,  is  as  much  concerned  in  that  matter  as  the  author 
himself. 

The  work  here  presented  to  the  reader  is  not  a  party  work.  It  is  an 
attempt  to  wipe  off  the  foul  stains  which  have  been  cast  on  us,  through 
the  aspersion  of  our  founders.  If  Mr.  M'Caine's  book  be  true,  it  is 
impossible  that  any  Methodist,  who  is  a  real  friend  of  the  church,  and 
of  our  fathers,  can  otherwise  than  feel  himself  disgraced.  To  such,  a 
satisfactory  refutation  of  it  cannot  fail  to  be  acceptable.  Whatever  may 
be  the  claims  of  the  respective  questions  of  ecclesiastical  polity  agitated 
among  us,  let  them  stand  on  their  own  bases.  To  attempt  to  promote 
any  of  them  by  personal  attacks  on  the  dead,  is  an  unworthy  resort ; 
and,  with  the  judicious  and  reflecting,  can  only  be  regarded  as  indi- 
cating a  deficiency  of  better  argument. 

In  the  little  leisure  allowed  me  by  other  extensive  and  pressing 
engagements,  I  might  perhaps  be  excused  for  craving  some  indulgence 
from  the  reader,  in  replying  to  a  work  in  the  preparation  of  which 
several  years  were  employed.  This,  however,  I  trust,  is  not  neces- 
sary. All  that  is  asked  is  a  candid  examination  of  the  whole  of  the  fol- 
lowing pages,  in  their  consecutive  order.  This  is  the  more  necessary, 
as  the  various  sections  have  a  mutual  connection  and  dependance  ; — 
subsequent  ones  assuming  what  had  been  established  in  the  preceding ; 
nor  was  it  found  convenient  in  all  cases,  to  keep  the  matter  of  the 
respective  titles  entirely  distinct. 

In  preparing  this  Defence  the  Divine  assistance  has  been  asked  : — 
In  sending  it  abroad,  the  Divine  blessing  is  now  implored. 

J.  Emory. 
New -York,  November,  1827. 


DEFENCE   OF   OUR  FATHERS. 


Section  I. — Episcopacy. 

Mr.  M'Caine's  first  inquiry  is,  "What  views  do  eccle- 
siastical writers  give  us  of  an  episcopal  form  of  church 
government  ?" 

In  answer  to  this  inquiry,  he  quotes  certain  authorities 
in  support  of  the  following  positions,  viz. : 

That  "  Episcopalians,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word, 
are  those  who  maintain  that  episcopacy  is  of  apostolic 
institution,  or  that  the  church  of  Christ  has  ever  been 
governed  by  three  distinct  orders,  bishops,  presbyters  or 
priests,  and  deacons  ; — that  no  one  has  a  right  to  exe- 
cute the  ministerial  office  without  having  previously 
received  a  divine  commission  ;^and  the  exclusive  right 
of  granting  this  commission  is  vested  in  the  bishops  as 
successors  of  the  apostles." 

That  "  it  is  a  principle  universally  established  among 
Episcopalians,  that  a  succession  from  the  apostles  in  the 
order  of  bishops,  as  an  order  superior  to  and  distinct  from 
presbyters,  is  a  requisite  without  which  a  valid  Christian 
ministry  cannot  be  preserved ;  and  that  such  bishops 
alone  possess  the  power  of  ordaining  and  commissioning 
ministers  to  feed  the  flock  of  Christ." 

That  "  since  the  distinction  of  bishops  and  presbyters 
has  been  of  divine  appointment,  it  necessarily  follows 
that  the  power  of  ordination,  which  is  the  chief  mark  of 
this  distinction,  was  reserved  to  the  bishops  by  the  same 
appointment." 
<^Mr.  M'Caine  adds,  "  We  have  here  some  of  the  most 


8  A    DEFENCE    OF    OUR    FATHERS. 

prominent  features  of  an  episcopal  church,  as  laid  down 
by  writers  of  great  celebrity.  We  would  now  ask  our 
brethren  who  say  Mr.  Wesley  recommended  the  episcopal 
mode  of  church  government,  if  there  is  in  any  of  the  let- 
ters which  he  wrote  a  single  line  that  would  lead  us  to 
suppose  that  he  held  any  one  of  the  foregoing  particu- 
lars ?  Nay,  did  he  not  positively  say  he  did  not  hold 
them?  What  kind  of  an  episcopal  government  then 
must  it  be  that  has  not  in  it  a  single  feature  of  episco- 
pacy as  described  by  ecclesiastical  writers  ?" 

Bi^t  did  not  Mr.  M'Caine  know  that  there  are  "  eccle- 
siastical writers"  who  describe  "  episcopacy"  with  other 
features?.  If  he  did  not,  his  want  of  information  is 
greater  than  we  could  have  imagined.  If  he  did,  his 
argument  is  not  ingenuous.  We  can  scarcely  believe 
that  it  can  have  imposed  on  himself :  and  it  is  certainly 
too  glaringly  fallacious  to  be  imposed  on  others. 

'*  It  ought  to  be  understood,"  says  Dr.  Samuel  Miller, 
"  that  among  those  who  espouse  the  episcopal  side, — 
there  are  three  classes. 

"  The  first  consists  of  those  who  believe  that  neither 
Christ  nor  his  apostles  laid  down  any  particular  form  of 
ecclesiastical  government  to  which  the  church  is  bound 
to  adhere  in  all  ages.  That  every  church  is  free,  con- 
sistently with  the  divine  will,  to  frame  her  constitution 
agreeably  to  her  own  views,  to  the  state  of  society,  and 
to  the  exigencies  of  particular  times.  These  prefer  the 
episcopal  government,  and  some  of  them  believe  that  it 
v/as  the  primitive  form ;  but  they  consider  it  as  resting 
on  the  ground  of  human  expediency  alone,  and  not  of 
divine  apfoiniment.  This  is  well  known  to  have  been 
the  opinion  of  Archbishops  Cranmer,  Grindal,  Whitgift, 
Leighton,  and  Tillotson ;  of  Bishops  Jewel,  Reynolds, 
Burnet,  and  Croft ;  of  Drs.  Whitaker  and  Stillingfleet, 
and  of  a  long  list  of  the  7nost  learned  and  pious  divines 
of  the  Church  of  England,  from  the  reformation  down 
to  the  present  day. 


A    DEFENCE    OF    OUR    FATHERS.  9 

^'  Another  class  of  Episcopalians  go  farther.  They 
suppose  that  the  government  of  the  church  by  bishops, 
as  a  superior  order  to  presbyters,  was  sanctioned  by  apos- 
tolic example,  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  all  churches  to 
imitate  this  example.  But  while  they  consider  episco- 
pacy as  necessary  to  the  perfection  of  the  church,  they 
grant  that  it  is  by  no  means  necessary  to  her  existence; 
and  accordingly,  without  hesitation,  acknowledge  as  true 
churches  of  Christ  many  in  which  the  episcopal  doctrine 
is  rejected,  and  presbyterian  principles  made  the  basis 
of  ecclesiastical  government.  The  advocates  of  this 
opinion,  also,  have  been  numerous  and  respectable,  both 
among  the  clerical  and  lay  members  of  the  Episcopal 
churches  in  England  and  the  United  States.  In  this 
list  appear  the  venerable  names  of  Bishop  Hall,  Bishop 
Downham,  Bishop  Bancroft,  Bishop  Andrews,  Arch- 
bishop Usher,  Bishop  Forbes,  the  learned  Chilhngworth, 
Archbishop  Wake,  Bishop  Hoadly,  and  many  more. 

"A  third  class  go  much  beyond  either  of  the  former. 
While  they  grant  that  God  has  left  men  at  liberty  to 
modify  every  other  kind  of  government  according  to  cir- 
cumstances, they  contend  that  one  form  of  government 
for  the  church  is  unalterably  fixed  by  divine  appoint- 
ment; that  this  form  is  episcopal ;  that  it  is  absolutely 
essential  to  the  existence  of  the  church ;  that,  of  course, 
wherever  it  is  wanting,  there  is  no  church,  no  regular 
ministry,  no  valid  ordinances ;  and  that  all  who  are 
united  with  religious  societies  not  conforming  to  this 
order  are  '  aliens  from  Christ,'  '  out  of  the  appointed  way 
to  heaven,'  and  have  no  hope  but  in  the  '  uncovenanted 
mercies  of  God.' 

"  It  is  confidently  believed,"  continues  Dr.  Miller,  "that 
the  two  former  classes  taken  together,  embrace  at  least 
nineteen  parts  out  of  twenty  of  all  the  Episcopalians  in 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  ;  while,  so  far  as  can 
be  learned  from  the  most  respectable  writings,  and  other 
authentic  sources  of  information,  it  is  only  the  small 


-10  A    DEFENCE    OF    OUR   FATHERS. 

remaining  proportion  who  hold  the  extravagant  opinions 
assigned  to  the  third  and  last  of  these  classes." 

If  we  may  rely  on  the  researches  of  Dr.  Miller,  then, 
it  is  so  far  from  being  true,  that  "it  is  a  principle  uni- 
versally established  among  Episcopalians,  that  a  succes- 
sion from  the  apostles  in  the  order  of  bishops,  as  an  order 
superior  to  and  distinct  from  presbyters,  is  a  requisite 
without  which  a  valid  Christian  ministry  cannot  be  pre- 
served ;  and  that  such  bishops  alone  possess  the  power 
of  ordainino^  and  commissionino-  ministers  to  feed  the 
flock  of  Christ ;"  that  at  least  nineteen-twentieths  of  all 
the  Episcopalians  in  Great  Britain  and  in  the  United 
States  hold  no  such  sentiments."^  Neither,  as  we  shall 
show,  were  they  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Coke,  or  of  Mr. 
Asbury,  any  more  than  of  Mr.  Wesley :  nor  do  we  be- 
lieve that  they  are  entertained  by  a  single  individual 
among  Methodist  Episcopalians,  either  in  the  ministry 
or  in  the  laity. 

The  Irenicum  of  Dr.  Stillingfleet,  subsequently  Bishop 
Stillingfleet,  will  be  admitted  to  rank  among  the  produc- 
tions of  "ecclesiastical  writers"  of  distinguished  "cele- 
brity." From  this  work  we  shall  exhibit  a  view  of  epis- 
copacy somewhat  different  from  that  of  Mr.  M'Caine.f 

"I  assert,"  says  Dr.  Stillingfleet,  "  any  particular  form 
of  government  agreed  on  by  the  governors  of  the  church, 
consonant  to  the  general  rules  of  Scripture,  to  be  by 
divine  right ;  that  is,  God,  by  his  own  laws,  hath  given 
men  a  power  and  liberty  to  determine  the  particular 

*  Gisborne  also  asserts  that  they  are  not  the  sentiments  of  the  Church  of 
England. ^-^Swraey,  p.  254, 

fThe  object  of  Stillingfleet,  in  this  work,  was  to  discuss  and  examine  the 
divine  right  of  the  different  forms  of  church  government,  according  to  the 
principles  of  the  law  of  nature,  the  positive  laws  of  God,  the  practice  of  the 
apostles  and  the  primitive  ciuirch,  and  the  judgment  of  reformed  divines; 
in  order  to  lay  a  foundation  for  the  peace  of  the  church,  and  for  the  accommo- 
dation of  the  differences  which  then  existed.  His  aim  was  to  moderate  the 
extravagant  pretensions  of  high  churchmen^  on  the  one  side,  and  the  intem- 
perate zeal  of  those,  on  the  other,  who  were  for  destroying  episcopacy 
altogether.  With  what  ability,  and  excellent  temper,  and  moderation,  he 
performed  thjs  task  will  appear  in  the  sequel, 


A.  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  11 

form  of  church  government  among  them.  And  hence  it 
may  appear,  that  though  one  form  of  government  be 
agreeable  to  the  word,  it  doth  not  follow  that  another  is 
not,  or  because  one  is  lawful,  another  is  unlawful ;  but 
one  form  may  be  more  agreeable  to  some  parts,  places, 
people,  and  times,  than  others  are.  In  w^hich  case^  that 
form  of  government  is  to  be  settled  which  is  most  agree- 
able to  the  present  state  of  a  place,  and  is  most  advan- 
tageously conducible  to  the  promoting  the  ends  of  church 
government  in  that  place  or  nation."  Irenicum,  pp.  9,  10, 
2d  edit.  Lond.  1662. 

"  Matters  of  fact  and  mere  apostolical  practice,  may,  I 
freely  grant,  receive  much  light  from  the  records  of  suc- 
ceeding ages  ;  but  they  can  never  give  a  man's  under- 
standing sufficient  ground  to  infer  any  divine  law,  arising 
from  those  facts  attested  to  by  the  practice  or  records  of 
succeeding  ages."  Ihid.,  p.  151. 

In  relation  to  arguments  drawn  from  the  testimony  of 
antiquity,  before  their  authority  can  be  admitted  in  this 
controversy,  Dr.  Stillingfleet  affirms, ''  these  things  mast 
be  manifested  : — that  such  things  were  unquestionably  the 
fractice  of  those  ages  and  persons  ;  that  their  practice  rvas 
the  same  as  that  of  the  apostles  ;  that  rvhat  they  did  was 
not  from  any  prudential  motives,  hut  hy  virtue  of  a  law 
which  did  hind  them  to  that  practice.  Which  things  are 
easily  passed  over  by  the  most  eager  disputers  of  the 
controversy  about  church  government,  but  how  necessary 
they  are  to  be  proved,  before  any  form  of  government 
be  asserted  so  necessary,  that  without  it  there  can  be  no 
true  church,  any  weak  understanding  may  discern."  lb. 
p.  152. 

"  The  reason  of  apostolical  practice  binds  still, 
though  not  the  individual  action;  that  as  they  regulated 
churches  for  the  best  conveniency  of  governing  them, 
so  should  the  pastors  of  churches  now."  Ih.,  p.  181. 

"  Any  one  particular  form  of  governm.ent  in  the  church 
13  neither  expressed  in  any  direct  terms  by  Christ,  nor  can 


12  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

be  deduced  by  just  consequence ;  therefore  no  such 
form  of  government  is  instituted  by  Christ."  Ih.,  p.  182. 

"  But  though  nothing  can  be  inferred  from  hence  as 
to  the  necessity  of  that  office  to  continue  in  the  church, 
which  Timothy  and  Titus  were  invested  in ;  yet  from 
the  superiority  of  that  power  which  they  enjoyed  over 
those  churches,  whether  as  evangehsts  or  as  fixed 
bishops,  these  two  things  may  be  inferred :  First,  That 
the  superiority  of  some  church  officers  over  others  is  not 
contrary  to  the  rule  of  the  gospel:  for  all  parties  ac- 
knov^ledge  the  superiority  of  their  power  above  the  pres- 
byters of  the  several  cities  ;  only  the  continuance  of  this 
power  is  disputed  by  many.  But  if  they  had  any  such 
power  at  all,  it  is  enough  for  my  present  design,  viz., 
that  such  a  superiority  is  not  contrary  to  the  gospel  rule : 
or  that  the  nature  of  the  government  of  the  church  doth 
not  imply  a  accessary  equality  among  the  governors  of 
it.  Secondly,  Hence  I  infer  that  it  is  not  repugnant  to 
the  constitutions  of  churches  in  apostolical  times  for 
men  to  have  power  over  more  than  one  particular  con- 
gregation. For  such  a  power  Timothy  and  Titus  had ; 
which,  had  it  been  contrary  to  the  nature  of  the  regiment 
of  churches,  we  should  never  have  read  of  in  the  first- 
planted  churches.  So  that  if  those  popular  arguments  of 
a  necessary  relation  between  a  pastor  and  a  particular 
people,  of  personal  knowledge,  care,  and  inspection,  did 
destroy  the  lawfulness  of  extending  that  care  or  charge 
to  many  particular  congregations,  they  would  likewise 
overthrow  the  nature,  end,  and  design  of  the  office  which 
Timothy  and  Titus  acted  in  ;  which  had  a  relation  to  a 
multitude  of  particular  and  congregational  churches. 
Whether  their  power  was  extraordinary  or  no,  I  now 
dispute  not ;  but  whether  such  a  power  be  repugnant  to 
the  gospel  or  no,  which  from  their  practice  it  is  evident 
that  it  is  not."  Ih.,  pp.  186,  187. 

The  foundation  of  this  power  was  laid  in  the -power 
which  the  apostles  were  invested  with,  which  was  ex- 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  13 

tended  over  many,  both  churches  and  pastors.  "  If  it  be 
said,  The  apostolical  power,  bemg  extraordinary,  must 
cease  with  the  persons  who  enjoyed  it;  I  diTiswQx,  first.  What 
was  extraordinary  did  cease  ;  but  all  the  dispute  is  what 
was  extraordinary,  and  what  was  not.  Secondly,  By 
ceasing  may  be  meant  either  ceasing  as  to  its  necessity, 
or  ceasing  as  to  its  laivfulness.  I  say  not  but  that  the 
necessity  of  the  office,  as  in  their  persons,  for  the  first 
preaching  and  propagating  the  gospel,  did  cease  with 
them ;  but  that  after  their  death  it  became  unlawful  for 
any  particular  persons  to  take  the  care  and  charge  of 
diocesan  churches,  I  deny.  For  to  m.ake  a  thing  unlaw- 
ful, which  was  before  lawful,  there  must  be  some  express 
prohibition,  forbidding  any  farther  use  of  such  a  power, 
which,  I  suppose,  men  will  not  easily  produce  in  the 
word  of  God."  lb.,  pp.  194,  5. 

"  The  extending  of  any  ministerial  power  is  not  the 
appointing  of  any  new  office;  because  every  minister  of 
•the  gospel  hath  a  relation  in  actu primd"  (primarily)  "to 
the  whole  church  of  God ;  the  restraint  and  enlargement 
of  which  power  is  subject  to  positive  determinations  of 
prudence  and  conveniency, — and  therefore  if  the  church 
see  it  fit  for  some  men  to  have  this  power  enlarged,  for 
better  government  in  some,  and  restrained  in  others,  that 
enlargement  is  the  appointing  no  new  office,  but  the 
making  use  of  a  power  already  enjoyed  for  the  benefit 
of  the  church  of  God.  This  being  a  foundation  tending 
so  fully  to  clear  the  lawfulness  of  that  government  in 
the  church,  which  implies  a  superiority  and  subordination 
of  the  officers  of  the  church  to  one  another;  and  the 
church  using  her  prudence  in  ordering  the  bounds  of  her 
officers,  I  shall  do  these  two  things :  First,  Show  that 
the  power  of  every  minister  of  the  gospel  doth  primarily 
and  habitually  respect  the  church  in  common.  Secondly, 
That  the  church  may,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  single  out 
some  of  its  officers  for  the  due  administration  of  eccle- 
siastical power."  lb.,  p.  195, 


14  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

"  The  officers  of  the  church  may,  in  a  pecuhar  man- 
ner, attribute  a  larger  and  more  extensive  power  to 
some  particular  persons,  for  the  more  convenient  exer- 
cise of  their  common  power — grant  to  some  the  executive 
part  of  that  power,  which  is  originally  and  fundamentally 
common  to  them  all.  For  our  better  understanding  of 
this,  we  must  consider  a  twofold  power  belonging  to 
church  officers,  a  power  of  order,  and  a  power  of  jurisdic- 
tion:' lb.  p.,  197. 

Under  this  distinction  he  show^s,  that  though  every 
presj)yter,  primarily  and  inherently,  as  to  or<ier  possesses 
a  capacity  for  the  highest  ministerial  acts,  yet  "  some 
farther  authority  is  necessary  in  a  church  co7istituted''  (or 
organized)  "  besides  the  power  of  order ;  and  when  this 
power,  either  by  consent  of  the  pastors  of  the  church,  or 
by  the  appointment  of  a  Christian  magistrate,  or  both,  is 
devolved  to  some  particular  persons,  though  quoad  ap- 
titiidinem:''  (as  to  the  capacity  or  fitness)  "  the  power 
remain  in  every  presbyter,  yet  quoad  executionem,  (as  to 
the  actual  discharge  or  execution  of  it,)  "it  belongs  to 
those  who  are  so  appointed.  And  therefore  Camero 
determines  that  ordination  doth  not  belong  to  the  power 
of  order,  but  to  the  power  of  jurisdiction,  and  therefore 
is  subject  to  positive  restraints,  by  prudential  determina- 
tions. By  this  we  may  understand  how  lawful  the 
exercise  of  an  episcopal  power  may  be  in  the  church  of 
God,  supposing  an  equalitij  in  all  church  officers  as  to 
the  power  of  order.  And  how  incongruously  they  speak, 
who,  supposing  an  equality  in  the  presbyters  of  church- 
es at  first,  do  cry  out  that  the  church  takes  upon  her 
the  office  of  Christ,  if  she  delegates  any  to  a  more  pecur 
liar  exercise  of  the  power  of  jwisdlction.''  lb.,  pp.  197,  8. 

"  Before  the  jurisdiction  of  presbyters  was  restrained 
by  mutual  consent,  in  this  instant,  doubtless,  the  presby- 
ters enjoyed  the  same  liberty  that  the  presbyters  among 
the  Jews  did,  of  ordaining  other  presbyters,,  by  that 
power  they   were   invested   in    at   their   own   ordina 


A.  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  15 

tion. In  the  first  primitive  church,  the  presbyters  all 

acted  in  common  for  the  welfare  of  the  church,  and 
either  did  or  might  ordain  others  to  the  same  authority 
with  themselves ;  because  the  intrinsical  power  of  order 
is  equally  in  them,  and  in  those  who  were  after  appoint- 
ed governors  over  presbyteries.  And  the  collation  of 
orders  doth  come  from  the  power  of  order,  and  not  mere- 
lij  from  the  power  of  jurisdiction.  It  being  likewise 
fulhj  acknowledged  by  the  schoolmen,  that  bishops  are 
not  superior  above  presbyters,  as  to  the  power  of  order. ''^ 
lb.,  p.  273. 

''  It  is  evident  Jerome  attributes  the  first  original  of 
that  exsors  potestas,^'  [delegated  power,  or  power  given 
by  choice,]  ''  as  he  calls  it  elsewhere,  in  the  bishop 
above  presbyters,  not  to  any  apostolical  institution,  but 
to  the  free  choice  of  the  preshijters  themselves :  which  doth 
fully  explain  what  he  means  by  consuetudo  ecclesice 
before  spoken  of,  viz.,  that  which  came  up  by  a  volun- 
tary act  of  the  governors  of  churches  themselves. 

To  which  we  may  add  what  Eutychius  the  patriarch  of 
Alexandria  saith,  in  his  Origines  Ecclesice  Ale.xandrinde, 
published  in  Arabic  by  our  most  learned  Selden,  who 
expressly  affirms,  that  the  trvelve  presbyters  coristituted 
by  Mark  upon  the  vacancy  of  the  see,  did  choose  out  of 
their  number  one  to  be  head  over  the  rest,  and  the  other 
eleven  did  lay  their  hands  upon  him,  and  blessed  him,  and 
made  him  patriarch.'"  lb.,  p.  274. 

"  Antonius  de  Rosellis  fully  expresseth  my  meaning 
in  this;" — (in  the  first  period  of  the  church.)  ''Every 
presbyter  and  presbyters  did  ordain  indifferently,  and  thence 
arose  schisms :  thence  the  liberty  was  restrained  and 
reserved  peculiarly  to  some  persons  who  did  act  in  the 
several  presbyteries,  as  the  x'l^Jn  or  Prince  of  the  Sanhe- 

drin, both  parties  granting  that  in  the  church  such  a 

restraint  was  laid  upon  the  liberty  of  ordaining  presby- 
ters :  and  the  exercise  of  that  power  may  be  restrained 
still,  granting  it  to  be  radically  and  intrinsically  in  them. 


16  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

So  that  this  controversy  is  not  such  as  should  divide  the 
church.  For  those  that  are  for  ordinations  only  by  a 
superior  order  in  the  church,  acknowledging  a  radical 
power  for  ordination  in  presbyters,  which  may  be 
exercised  in  case  of  necessity,  do  thereby  make  it  evi- 
dent, that  none  who  grant  that,  do  think  that  any  positive 
law  of  God  hath  forbidden  presbyters  the  power  of 
ordination ;  for  then  it  must  be  wholly  unlaivful,  and  so 
in  case  of  necessity  it  cannot  be  valid.  Which  doctrine 
I  dare  with  some  confidence  assert  to  be  a  stranger  to 
our  Church  of  England, — on  the  other  side,  those  who 
hold  ordinations  by  presbyters  lawful,  do  not  therefore 
hold  them  necessary,  but  it  being  a  matter  of  liberty,  and 
not  of  necessity — this  powder  then  may  be  restrained  by 
those  who  have  the  care  of  the  church's  peace,  and  mat- 
ters of  liberty  being  restrained,  ought  to  be  submitted 
to,  in  order  to  the  church's  peace."  lb.,  p.  276. 

"In  the  matter  itself,  I  believe  upon  the  strictest 
inquiry  Medina's  judgment  will  prove  true,  that  Jerome, 
Austin,  Ambrose,  Sedulius,  Primasius,  Chrysostom, 
Theodoret,  Theophylact,  were  all  of  Aerius's  judgment 
as  to  the  identity  of  both  name  and  order  of  bishops 
and  presbyters  in  the  primitive  church ;  but  here  lay 
the  difference.  Aerius  from  hence  proceeded  to  sepa- 
ration from  bishops  and  their  churches,  because  they  were 
bishops.  And  Blondell  well  observes,  that  the  main 
ground  why  Aerius  was  condemned  was  for  unnecessary 
separation  from   the   church  of  Sebastia ;    and   those 

bishops,  too,  who  agreed  with  him  in  other  things, 

whereas  Jerome  was  so  far  from  thinking  it  necessary 
to  cause  a  schism  in  the  church,  by  separating  from 
bishops,  that  his  opinion  is  clear,  thiat  the  first  institution 
of  them  was  for  preventing  schisms ;  and  therefore,  for 
peace  and  unity,  he  thought  their  institution  very  use- 
ful in  the  church  of  God."  lb.,  pp.  276-7. 

"  When  the  apostles  were  taken  out  of  the  way,  who 
kept  the  main  power  in  their  own  hands  of  ruling  their 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  17 

several  presbyteries,  or  delegated  some  to  do  it,  (who 
had  a  main  hand  in  planting  churches  with  the  apostles, 
and  thence  are  called  in  Scripture,  sometimes  fellow- 
labourers  in  the  Lord,  and  sometimes  evangelists,  and 
by  Theodoret  apostles,  but  of  a  second  order,)  after,  I 
say,  these  were  deceased,  and  the  main  power  left  in. 
the  presbyteries,  the   several  presbyters  enjoying   an 
equal  powder  among  themselves, — the  wiser  and  graver 
sort  considered  the  abuses  following  the  promiscuous 
use  of  this  power  of  ordination,  and  withal  having  in 
their  minds  the  excellent  frame  of  the  government  of 
the  church,  under  the  apostles  and  their  deputies,  and  for 
preventing  of  future  schisms  and  divisions  among  them- 
selves, they  unanimously  agreed  to  dioose  one  out  of  their 
number  who  was  best  quahfied  for  the  management  of 
so  great  a  trust,  and  to  devolve  the  exercise  of  the  power 
of  ordination  and  jurisdiction  to  him ;    yet  so  as  that 
he  act  nothing  of  importance  rvithout  the  consent  arid 
'concurrence    of  the  presbyters,   who   w^ere   still   to   be 
as   the   common  council  to  the   bishop.     This   I  take 
to  be  the  true  and  just  account  of  the  original  of  epis- 
copacy in  the  primitive  church  according  to  Jerome: 
which  model  of  government,  thus  contrived  and  framed, 
sets  forth  to  us  a  most  lively  character  of  that  great 
wisdom  and  moderation  wliich  then  ruled  the  heads  and 
hearts  of  the  primitive  Christians,  and  which,  when  men 
have  studied  and  searched  all  other  ways,  (the  abuses 
incident  to  this  government  through  the  corruptions  of 
men  and  times  being  retrenched,)  willhe  found  the  most 
agreeable  to  the  primitive  form,  both  as  asserting  the  due 
interest  of  the  presbyteries,  and  allowing  the  due  honour 
of  episcopacy,  and  by  the  great  harmony  of  both,  carrying 
on  the  affairs  of  the  church  with  the  greatest  unity,  con- 
cord, and  peace.     Which  form  of  government,  I  cannot 
see  how  any  possible  reason  can  be  produced  by  either 
party  why  they  may  not  with  cheei fulness  embrace  it:' 


18  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

"  Thus  we  have  once  more  cleared  Jerome  and  the 
truth  together ;  I  only  wish  that  all  that  are  of  his  judg- 
ment for  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church,  were  of  his 
temper  for  the  practice  of  their  own ;  and  while  they  own 
not  episcopacy  as  necessary  by  a  divine  right,  yet  (being 
duly  moderated,  and  joined  with  presbyteries)  they  may 
embrace  it,  as  not  only  a  lawful,  but  very  useful  consti- 
tution in  the  church  of  God.  By  w^hich  we  may  see 
what  an  excellent  temper  may  be  found  out,  most  fully 
consonant  to  the  primitive  church  for  the  management 
of  ordinations  and  church  power,  viz.,  by  the  presi- 
dency OF  the  bishop  and  the  concurrence  of  the 

PRESBYTERY."    Ih.,  p.  283. 

"  AH  that  I  have  to  say  then,  concerning  the  course 
taken  by  the  apostles,  in  settling  the  government  of  the 
churches, — lies  in  these  three  propositions, — viz..  That 
neither  can  rve  have  that  certaintij  of  apostolical  practise, 
which  is  necessary  to  constitute  a  divine  right;  nor,  second- 
ly, is  it  prohaUe  that  the  apostles  did  tie  themselves  up  to 
any  one  fixed  course  in  modelling  churches;  nor,  thirdly, 
if  they  did,  doth  it  necessarily  follow  that  we  must  observe 
the  same''  Ih.,  p.  287. 

"In  this  place,  lib.  4,  cap.  43,  he"  (Irenseus)  "not 
only  asserts  the  succession  of  presbyters  to  the  apostles, 
but  likewise  attributes  the  successio  episcopatus"  {the 
succession  of  the  episcopate)  "  to  these  very  presbyters." 
Whence  comes  then  the  community  of  names  still,  that 
those  who  are  said  to  succeed  the  apostles,  are  called 
bishops  in  one  place,  but  presbyters  in  another;  and 
the  very  succession  of  episcopacy  attributed  to 
presbyters?"  Ih.,  p.  307. 

"And  great  probability  there  is,  that  where  churches 
were  planted  by  presbyters,  as  the  Church  of  France  by 
Andochius  and  Inignus,  that  afterward,  upon  the 
increase  of  churches  and  presbyters  to  rule  them,  they 
did  from  among  themselves  choose  one  to  be  as  the 
bishop  over  them,  as  Pothinus  was  at  Lyons.  For  we 
2* 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  19 

nowhere  read  in  those  early  plantations  of  churches,  that 
where  there  were  preshyters  already,  they  sent  to  other 
churches  to  desire  episcopal  ordination  from  them."  lb., 
p.  375. 

"It  is  a  known  mstance,  that  in  the  ordination  of 
Pelagius,  first  bishop  of  Rome,  there  were  only  two 
bishops  concerned  and  one  presbyter ;  whereas,  accord- 
ing- to  the  fourth  cano)i  of  the  Nicene  council,  three 
bishops  are  absolutely  required  for  the  ordination  of  a 
bishop:  either,  then,  Pelagius  was  no  canonical  bishop, 
and  so  the  point  of  succession  thereby  fails  in  the 
church  of  Rome :  or  else  a  presbyter  hath  the  same 
intrinsical  power  of  ordination  which  a  bishop  hath," 
[even  in  ordaining  a  bishop,]  "  but  it  is  only  restrained 
by  ecclesiastical  laws."  lb.,  p.  380. 

"  I  believe  there  will,  upon  the  most  impartial  survey, 
scarce  be  one  church  of  the  reformation  brought  which 
doth  embrace  any  form  of  government,  because  it  looked 
••upon  that  form  as  only  necessary  by  an  unalterable 
standing  law ;  but  every  one  took  up  that  form  of  govern- 
ment which  was  judged  most  suitable  to  the  state  and 
condition  of  their  several  churches r  lb.,  p.  384. 

"  I  doubt  not  but  to  make  it  evident,  that  the  main 
ground  for  settling  episcopal  government  in  this  nation," 
(England,)  "  was  not  accounted  any  pretence  of  divine 
right,  but  the  conveniency  of  that  form  of  church  govern- 
ment to  the  state  and  condition  of  the  church  at  the  time 
of  its  reformation."  lb,,  p.  385. 

"  The  first  who  solemnly  appeared  in  vindication  of 
the  Enghsh  hierarchy  was  Archbishop  Whitgift :  yet  he 
asserts  that  no  kind  of  government  is  expressed  in  the 
word,  or  can  necessarily  be  concluded  from  thence :  and 
again,  no  form  of  church  goverjiment  is  by  the  Scripture 
prescribed  to,  or  commanded  the  church  of  God."  lb.,  p.  394. 

"  That  great  Hght  of  the  German  church,  Chemnitius, 
asserts  the  churches'  freedom  and  liberty  as  to  the  orders 
and  degrees  of  those  who  superintend  the  affairs  of  the 


20  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

church ;  which  he  builds  on  a  three-fold  foundation : — 
1.  That  the  word  of  God  nowhere  commands  7vhat  or 
hojv  many  degrees  and  orders  of  ministers  there  shall 
be.  2.  That  in  the  apostles'  times  there  was  not  the 
like  nimiber  in  all  churches,  as  is  evident  from  Paul's 
epistles.  3.  That  in  the  apostles'  times,  in  some  places, 
one  person  did  manage  the  several  offices  belonging  to  a 
church.  Which  three  propositions  are  the  very  basis 
of  all  our  foregoing  discourse. — The  sum  is,  it  appears 
by  the  practice  of  the  apostolical  church,  that  the  state, 
condition,  and  necessity  of  every  particular  church  ought 
to  be  the  standard  and  measure  what  offices  and  degrees 
of  persons  ought  to  be  in  it."  /&.,  pp.  397,  398. 

Zanchy,  an  eminent  Presbyterian  divine,  "  asserts  it 
to  be  in  the  church's  power  and  liberty  to  add  several 
orders  of  ministers,  according  as  it  judgeth  them  tend 
to  edification ;  and  saith  he  is  far  from  condemning  the 
course  of  the  primitive  church,  in  erecting  one  as  bishop 
over  the  presbyters,  for  better  managing  church  affairs." 
Ih.,  p.  399. 

Fregevil,  a  divine  of  the  French  church,  (whom  the 
EngUsh  bishop  Hall  calls  "  wise  Fregevil,  a  deep  head,") 
in  his  "  Politic  Reformer,"  says,  "  When  the  apostles 
first  planted  churches,  the  same  being  small  and  in 
affliction,  there  were  not  as  yet  any  other  bishops,  priests, 
or  deacons  but  themselves  :  they  were  the  bishops  and 
deacons,  and  together  served  the  tables.  These  men, 
therefore,  whom  God  raiseth  up  to  plant  a  church,  can 
do  no  better  than,  after  the  exarftple  of  the  apostles,  to 
bear  themselves  in  equal  authority."  Ih.,  p.  400. 

Beza,  another  eminent  Presbyterian  divine,  says, 
"  He  was  so  far  from  thinking  that  the  human  order  of 
episcopacy  was  brought  into  the  church  through  rash- 
ness or  ambition,  that  none  can  deny  it  to  have  been 
very  useful  as  long  as  bishops  were  good.  And  those 
that  both  will  and  can,  let  them  enjoy  it  still. — And 
elsewhere  professeth  all  reverence,  esteem,  and  honour 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  21 

to  be  due  to  all  such  modern  bishops,  who  strive  to  imi- 
tate the  example  of  the  primitive  bishops,  in  a  due 
reformation  of  the  church  of  God  according  to  the  rule 
of  the  word.  And  looks  on  it  as  a  most  false  and  impu- 
dent calumny  of  some  that  said  as  though  they"  [of 
Geneva]  "  intended  to  prescribe  their  form  of  govern- 
ment to  all  other  churches ;  as  though  they  were  like 
some  ignorant  fellows  who  think  nothing  good  but  what 
they  do  themselves."    Ih.,  p.  406. 

To  invalidate  the  authority  of  Stillingfleet's  Ireni- 
cum,  it  has  been  objected  by  some  extravagant  assert- 
ers  of  the  apostolical  succession  of  episcopacy,  that  it 
was  an  indigested  work,  written  when  the  author  was 
young,  and  was  subsequently  retracted.  How  far  this 
representation  is  correct,  the  following  facts  will  show. 
— After  being  several  years  engaged  in  the  composition 
of  that  work,  the  author  published  it  in  1659,  at  the 
age  of  twenty-four.  Three  years  afterward,  in  1662, 
he  published  a  second  edition ;  and  the  same  year  he 
gave  to  the  world  his  Origines  Sacrse.  Soon  after  these 
publications  he  met  his  diocesan,,  the  celebrated  Bishop 
Saunderson,  at  a  visitation.  The  bishop,  seeing  so 
young  a  man,  could  hardly  believe  it  was  Stillingfleet, 
whom  he  had  hitherto  known  only  by  his  writings ;  and, 
after  having  embraced  him,  said.  He  much  rather  ex- 
pected to  have  seen  one  as  considerable  for  his  age,  as 
he  had  already  shown  himself  for  his  learning.  See 
the  Life  of  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  pp.  12-16,  as  quoted 
by  Dr.  Miller. — "  When  a  divine  of  acknowledged 
talents  and  learning,"  adds  Dr.  Miller,  "  after  spending 
several  years  in  a  composition  of  moderate  length, 
dehberately  commits  it  to  the  press ;  when,  after  reflect- 
ing on  the  subject,  and  hearing  the  remarks  of  his 
friends  for  three  years  longer,  he  publishes  it  a  second 
time ;  and  when,  after  this  second  publication,  he  is 
complimented  for  his  great  erudition  by  one  of  the  most 
abje  and  learned  dignitaries  of  the  age,  there  seems 


22  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

little  room  for  a  charge  of  haste  or  want  of  digestion.*' 
Letters,  pp.  270,  271,  n. 

"  The  truth  seems  to  be,"  continues  Dr.  Miller,  "  that 
Dr.  Stilhngfleet,  finding  that  the  opinions  of  a  number  of 
influential  men  in  the  church  were  different  from  those 
which  he  had  advanced  in  this  work ;  and  finding-  also 
that  a  fixed  adherence  to  them  might  be  adverse  to  the 
interest  of  the  estabhshed  church,  in  which  he  sought 
preferment,  he  made  a  kind  of  vague  and  feeble  recan- 
tation ;  and  wrote  in  favour  of  the  apostolical  origin  of 
episcopacy.  It  is  remarkable,  however,  that  this  pre- 
late, in  answer  to  an  accusation  of  inconsistency  between 
his  early  and  his  latter  writings  on  this  subject,  assigned 
another  reason  besides  a  change  of  opinion,  viz.,  that 
the  former  were  written  '  before  the  laws  were  established.^ 
But  in  whatever  degree  his  opinion  may  have  been 
altered,  his  reasonings  and  authorities  have  undergone 
no  change.  They  remain  in  all  their  force,  and  have 
never  been  refuted,  either  by  himself  or  by  others." 
lb.,  p.  271. 

Dr.  White,  now  Bishop  White  of  Pennsylvania,  was 
of  opinion  that  that  learned  prelate,  Stillingfleet,  was 
most  probably  not  dissatisfied  with  that  part  of  the 
Irenicum  which  would  have  been  to  his  (Dr.  White's) 
purpose ;  and  which  of  course,  as  we  shall  presently 
show,  is  to  our  purpose.  Burnet,  the  contemporary 
and  friend  of  Stillingfleet,  says,  (History  of  his  Own 
Times,  anno  1661,)  "  To  avoid  the  imputation  that  book 
brought  on  him,  he  went  into  the  humours  of  a  high 
sort  of  people  beyond  what  became  him,  perhaps  be- 
yond his  own  sense  of  things."  "  The  book,  however," 
Bishop  White  adds,  "was,  it  seems,  easier  retracted  than 
refuted  :  for  though  offensive  to  many  of  both  parties,  it 
was  managed,  says  the  same  author,  [Burnet,]  with  so 
much  learning  and  skill,  that  none  of  either  side  ever  un- 
dertook to  answer  it."  See  *'  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal 
Churches  in  the  United  States  Considered,"  page  22. 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  23 

"  Luther,  and  the  leading  divines  of  his  denomination, 
supposed  that  a  system"  [of  church  government]  "  em- 
bracing some  degree  of  imparity"  [among  ministers] 
"  was  in  general  expedient ;  and,  accordingly,  in  pro- 
ceeding- to  organize  their  churches,  appointed  superin- 
tendents, who  enjoyed  a  kind  of  pre-eminence,  and  w^ere 
vested  with  pecuhar  powers.  But  they  explicitly  ac- 
knowledged this  office  to  be  a  human,  and  not  a  divine 
institution."     Miller's  Letters,  p.  237. 

The  Lutheran  churches  in  Sweden  and  Denmark  are 
episcopal.  See  Mosheim,  vol.  iv,  p.  279.  Yet  all  eccle- 
siastical historians  agree  that  when  the  Reformation 
was  introduced  into  Sweden,  the  first  ministers  who 
undertook  to  ordain  w^ere  only  presbyters.  Miller's 
Letters,  p.  240. 

"It  is  equally  certain  that  in  the  ordination  of  a 
bishop,  if  the  other  bishops  happen  to  be  absent,  the  more 
grave  and  aged  of  the  ordinary  pastors  supply  their 
place,  and  are  considered  as  fully  invested  rvith  the 
ordaining  poYvery  lb.,  p.  24L 

In  case  of  necessity,  the  same  power  is  recognised 
by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  fully  invested 
in  her  body  of  presbyters.  Yet,  if  by  death,  expulsion, 
or  otherwise,  there  should  at  any  time  be  no  bishop 
remaining  among  us,  even  in  this  case  the  remaining 
presbyters  would  not  themselves  directly  ordain  new 
presbyters,  but  would  first  set  apart  another  general 
superintendent,  or  superintendents,  as  their  constituted 
organ  for  this  purpose. 


Section  II. — Sentiments  of  Bishop  White. 

In  the  year  1783  a  pamphlet  was  pubhshed  in  Phila- 
delphia entitled,  "  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches 
in  the  United  States  Considered."  This  work  has 
^ways  been  considered  as  the  production  of  Dr.  White, 


24  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

now  Bishop  White,  of  Pennsylvania.  Dr.  Miller,  in  his 
Letters,  published  in  1807,  p.  270,  attributes  it  to  him 
by  name  ;  and  we  have  not  understood  that  its  authen- 
ticity has  ever  been  denied.  A  new  edition  of  it  has 
recently  been  published  in  Philadelphia,  by  William 
Stavely,  publisher  of  the  Philadelphia  Recorder,  a 
paper  edited  by  a  distinguished  clergyman  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church. 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  work  with  what  ability 
Dr.  White  argued  the  case  of  the  Episcopal  churches  in 
the  United  States  at  that  period;  and  how  equally 
strikingly  his  arguments  were  adapted  to  the  state  of 
the  Methodist  societies  at  the  same  period. 

In  a  "  Sketch  of  a  Frame  of  Government"  offered  by 
Dr.  White,  he  says,  "In  each  smaller  district  there 
should  be  elected  a  general  vestry  or  convention,  con- ' 
sisting  of  a  convenient  number,  (the  minister  to  be  one.) 
— They  should  elect  a  clergyman  their  -permanent  presi- 
dent;  who,  in  conjunction  with  other  clergymen  to  be 
also  appointed  by  the  body,  may  exercise  such  powers 
as  are  purely  spiritual,  particularly  that  of  admitting  to 
the  ministry,''  p.  11. 

Again ;  "  The  conduct  meant  to  be  recommended, — 
is  to  include  in  the  proposed  frame  of  government  a 
ge?ieral  approbation  of  episcopacy  and  a  declaration  of  an 
intention  to  procure  the  succession  as  soon  as  conve- 
niently may  be ;  but  in  the  meantime  to  carry  the  plan 
into  effect  without  waitifigfor  the  succession.""    lb.,  p.  15. 

"  But  it  will  be  also  said,"  continues  Dr.  White,  "  that 
the  very  name  of  ^  bishop^  is  offensive :  if  so,  cha?ige  it 
for  another ;  let  the  superior  clergyman  be  a  president,  a 
superintendent,  or  in  plain  English,  and  according  to  the 
literal  translation  of  the  original,  an  overseer.  However, 
if  names  are  to  be  reprobated,  because  the  powers 
annexed  to  them  are  abused,  there  are  few  appropriated 
to  either  civil  or  ecclesiastical  distinctions  which  would 
retain  their  places  in  our  catalogue."  J&.,  p.  17. 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  25 

"The  other  part  of  the  proposal"  of  Dr.  White, 
"  was  an  immediate  execution  of  the  plan  without  waiting 
for  the  episcopal  succession.  This  is  founded  on  the  pre- 
sumption that  the  worship  of  God  and  the  instruction 
and  reformation  of  the  people,  are  the  principal  objects 
of  ecclesiastical  discipline — ."  Ih. 

"  It  will  be  said,  we  ought  to  continue  as  we  are, 
with  the  hope  of  obtaining  it"  [the  succession]  "here- 
after. But,"  continues  Dr.  White,  "  are  the  acknow- 
ledged ordinances  of  Christ's  holy  religion  to  be  sus- 
pended for  years,  perhaps  as  long  as  the  present 
generation  shall  continue,  out  of  delicacy  to  a  disputed 
point,  and  that  relating  only  to  externals  ? — All  the  obli- 
gations of  conformity  to  the  divine  ordinances,  all  the 
arguments  which  prove  the  connection  between  public 
worship  and  the  morals  of  a  people,  combine  to  urge 
the  adopting  of  some  speedy  measures,  to  provide  for 
the  public  ministry  in  these  churches.  If  such  as  have 
been  above  recommended,"  [viz.,  ordination  by  the 
president  clergyman,  in  conjunction  with  other  clergy- 
men appointed  by  the  body,]  "  should  be  adopted,  and 
the  episcopal  succession  afterward  obtained,  any  sup- 
posed  imperfections  of  the  intermediate  ordinations  might, 
if  it  were  judged  proper,  be  supplied,  without  acknow- 
ledging their  nidlity  by  a  conditional  ordination  resem- 
bling that  of  conditional  baptism  in  the  liturgy."  Ih. 

But  if  the  "  succession"  had  never  been  "  afterward 
obtained,"  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  Dr.  White 
would  have  maintained  the  validity  of  the  ordinations 
on  his  plan,  without  the  succession.  For,  as  he  very 
justly  argues  in  another  place,  "  If  even  those  who  hold 
episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  right,  conceive  the  obligation 
to  it  to  be  not  binding  when  that  idea  would  be  destruc- 
tive of  public  worship,  much  more  must  they  think  so, 
who  indeed  venerate  and  prefer  that  form  as  the  most 
ancient  and  eligible,  but  without  any  idea  of  divine  right 
in  the  case.     This  the  author  believes  to  be  the  senti- 


26  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

ment  of  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in  America ; 
in  which  respect  they  have  in  their  favour  unquestion- 
ably the  sense  of  the  Church  of  England,  and,  as  he 
beheves,  the  opinions  of  her  most  distinguished  prelates 
for  piety,  virtue,  and  abilities."  Ih.  p.  25. 

To  make  any  particular  form  of  church  government, 
though  adopted  by  the  apostles,  unalterably  binding, 
Dr.  White  maintains,  "  it  must  be  shown  enjoined  in 
positive  precept."  lb.  He  remarks  farther,  "that  Dr. 
Calamy  having  considered  it  as  the  sense  of  the  church," 
[of  England,]  "  in  the  preface  to  the  ordinal,  that  the 
three  orders  were  of  divine  appointment,  and  urged  it 
as  a  reason  for  non-conformity;  the  bishop  [Hoadly] 
with  evident  propriety,  remarks,  that  the  service  pro- 
nounces no  such  thing ;  and  that  therefore  Dr.  Calamy 
created  a  difficulty  where  the  church  had  made  none ; 
there  being  '  some  difference,'  says  he,  '  between  these 
two  sentences — ^bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  are  three 
distinct  orders  in  the  church  by  divine  appointment, — 
and — -fro7n  the  apostles''  time  there  have  been  in  Christ's 
church,  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons." — "  The  same 
distinction,"  says  Dr.  White,  "  is  accurately  drawn  and 
fully  proved  by  Stillingfleet  in  the  Irenicum."  lb.,  p.  22, 
and  note. 

"  Now,"  continues  Dr.  White,  "if  the  form  of  church 
government  rest  on  no  other  foundation  than  ancient 
and  apostolical  practice,  it  is  humbly  submitted  to  con- 
sideration, whether  Episcopalians  will  not  be  thought 
scarcely  deservijig  the  name  of  Christians,  should  they, 
rather  than  consent  to  a  temporary  deviation,  abandon 
every  ordinance  of  positive  and  divine  appointment."  lb. 

The  reader  will  please  to  observe,  that,  at  the  period 
when  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  organized, 
if  we  had  not  acted  independently  of  the  alleged  apos- 
tolical succession,  we  must  necessarily,  for  a  long  time 
at  all  events,  have  abandoned  ordinances  of  positiye  and 
divine  appointment.     Mr.  Wesley,  also,  as  it  had  been 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  27 

proposed  to  desire  the  English  bishops  to  ordain  part 
of  our  preachers  for  America,  expressly  states:  1.  "I 
desired  the  bishop  of  London  to  ordain  one  only,  but 
could  not  prevail.  2.  If  they  consented,  we  know  the 
slowness  of  their  proceeding ;  but  the  matter  admits  of 
no  delay."  Dr.  White  was  of  the  same  opinion  in  rela- 
tion to  the  Episcopal  churches ;  and  was  in  favour  of 
carrying  his  plan  of  ordination,  "without  waiting  for 
the  episcopal  succession,"  into  immediate  "  execution." 

"  Bishop  Hoadly  says,  The  acceptance  of  reordination 
by  the  dissenting  ministers,  would  not  be  a  dejiial  of  that 
right,  which  (as  they  conceived)  preshjters  had  to  ordain''' 
lb.,  p.  23. 

The  learned  Hooker  also  admits,  that,  in  "  the  exigence 
of  necessity, ''  or  '^  the  necessity  of  the  present,^'  episcopal 
ordination,  in  the  line  of  succession,  is  not  indispen- 
sable." Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  1,  sec.  14. 

"  Had  Mr.  Hooker,"  says  Dr.  White,  (p.  26,)  "  been 
asked  to  define  '  the  exigence  of  necessity^  could  he  have 
imagined  any  more  urgent  than  the  case  in  question  ?" 
— the  case  of  the  Episcopal  churches  in  this  country  at 
that  time. — "  Or  had  he  been  inquired  of  concerning 
the  '  necessities  of  'present  times,'  could  he  have  men- 
tioned any  in  the  cases  to  which  he  alludes  (those  of 
Scotland  and  Geneva)  so  strongly  pleading  for  the 
liberty  he  allows,  as  those  nov/  existing  in  America?" — 
at  the  period  of  writing  and  publishing  that  pamphlet. 
The  reader  has  only  to  change  the  name,  and  the  just 
and  solid  argumentation  of  Dr.  White  is  as  exactly 
applicable  to  the  case  of  the  Methodist  societies  in 
America,  at  that  period,  as  to  "  the  case  of  the  Episcopal 
churches." 

"  What  necessity  was  there,"  continues  Dr.  Wliite, 
"  of  the  ' reformed  churches  abroad'  equal  to  ours  ?  Is 
not  an  immediate  imitation  of  the  ancient  usage  '  imprac- 
ticable V  Would  not  such  a  plan  as  has  been  proposed," 
"^viz.,  ordination  by  a  clergyman  chosen  as  a  permanent 


28  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

president,  in  conjunction  with  others  appointed  by  the 
body,)  "be  conforming,  as  far  as  circumstances  allow, 
to  our  ideas  of  '  the  apostolic  model  ?"  Ih.,  p.  27.  After 
quoting  Archbishops  Usher  and  Cranmer,  with  the 
highest  eulogies,  in  support  of  this  plan,  Dr.  White  thus 
concludes  the  argument: — 

"  On  the  credit  of  the  preceding  names,  the  author 
rests  this  the  last  part  of  his  subject ;  and  if  his  senti- 
ments should  meet  with  an  unfavourable  reception,  he 
will  find  no  small  consolation  from  being  in  a  company 
so  respectable."  Ih.,  p.  29. — So  say  we ;  especially 
since  we  have  now  added  the  name  of  Dr.  White. 
More  than  forty  years  have  elapsed  since  the  publica- 
tion of  that  pamphlet,  yet  we  are  not  aware  that  it  has 
ever  been  retracted.  If  it  had  been,  we  presume  that 
some  notice  would  have  been  given  of  it  in  the  new 
edition  just  published,  in  the  lifetime  of  the  bishop,  and 
at  the  place  of  his  own  residence.  And,  in  any  case, 
we  might  well  say  of  this  production,  as  Dr.  White 
so  appositely  remarked  of  Stillingfleet's  Irenicum, — ^it 
would  be  "  easier  retracted  than  refuted." 


Section  III. — Mr.  Weslei/s  Opinmi. 

"  As  to  my  own  judgment,"  says  Mr.  Wesley,  "  I  still 
believe  the  episcopal  form  of  church  government  to  be 
scriptural  and  apostolical :  I  mean,  well  agreeing  with 
the  practice  and  writings  of  the  apostles.  But  that  it  is 
prescribed  in  Scripture,  I  do  not  believe.  This  opinion, 
which  I  once  zealously  espoused,  I  have  been  heartily 
ashamed  of,  ever  since  I  read  Bishop  Stillingfleet's 
Irenicum.  I  thinli  he  has  unanswerably  proved,  that 
neither  Christ  nor  his  apostles  prescribe  any  particular 
form  of  church  government ;  and  that  the  plea  oi  divine 
right  for  diocesan  episcopacy  was  never  heard  of  in 


A   DEFENCE    OF    OUR   FATHERS.  2^ 

the  primitive  church."  Wesley's  Works,  London  edit., 
1813,  vol.  xvi,  p.  26. 

So  far  as  the  judgment  of  Mr.  Wesley  is  concerned 
then,  it  is,  on  the  one  hand,  decidedly  in  favour  of  "  the 
episcopal  form  of  church  government ;"  and,  on  the 
other,  as  decidedly  against  the  high  church  pretensions. 

The  above  extract  will  also  serve  to  show  the  opinion 
which  that  great  master  of  logic  entertained  of  Stilling- 
fleet's  Irenicum. 


Section  IV. — Ordination. 

With  the  preceding  principles  and  authorities  before 
us,  it  only  remains  to  consider  the  origin  and  force  of 
ordination,  and  we  shall  then  be  prepared  to  enter  into 
an  examination  of  the  original  organization  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

"  Their  custom  of  ordination,"  says  Dr.  Stillingfleet, 
"  w^as  evidently  taken  up  by  the  Christians  from  a  cor- 
respondency to  the  synagogue.— That  under  the  syna- 
gogue was  done  by  laying  on  of  hands. — k.  twofold  use 
I  find  of  this  symbolical  rite,  beside  the  solemn  desig- 
nation of  the  person  on  whom  the  hands  are  laid.  The 
Jirst  is  to  denote  the  delivery  of  the  person  or  thing 
thus  laid  hands  upon,  for  the  right,  use,  and  peculiar 
service  of  God.  The  second  end  of  the  laying  on  of 
hands  was,  the  solemn  invocation  of  the  Divine  pre- 
sence and  assistance  to  be  upon  and  with  the  person 
upon  whom  the  hands  were  thus  laid. — Thence,  in 
all  solemn  prayers,  wherein  any  person  was  particu- 
larly designed,  they  made  use  of  this  custom  of  impo- 
sition of  hands.  From  which  custom  Augustine  speaks, 
Quid  aliud  est  manuum  i?jipositio  nisi  oratio  super  liomi- 
nerp.V''  [what  is  imposition  of  hands  but  prayer  over  a 
man?]    "Thence   when   Jacob   prayed   over  Joseph's 


30  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

children,  he  laid  his  hands  upon  them ;  so  when  Moses 
prayed  over  Joshua.  The  practice  likewise  our  Saviour 
used  in  blessing  children,  healing  the  sick,  and  the 
apostles  in  conferring  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and 
from  thence  it  was  conveyed  into  the  practice  of  the 
primitive  church,  who  used  it  in  any  more  solemn  invo- 
cation of  the  name  of  God  in  behalf  of  any  particular 
persons.  But  the  most  solemn  and  peculiar  use  of  this 
imposition  of  hands  among  the  Jews,  was  in  the  design- 
ing of  any  persons  for  any  pubhc  employment  among 
them.  Not  as  though  the  hare  imposition  of  hands  did 
confer  any  power  upon  the  person — but  with  that  cere- 
mony they  joined  those  words  whereby  they  did  confer 
that  authority  upon  them. — This  custom  being  so  gene- 
rally in  use  among  the  Jews,  in  the  time  when  the 
apostles  were  sent  forth  with  authority  for  gathering 
and  setthng  the  churches,  we  find  them  accordingly 
making  use  of  this,  according  to  the  former  practice, 
either  in  any  more  solemn  invocation  of  the  presence  of 
God  upon  any  persons,  or  designation  and  appointing  them 
for  any  pecidiar  service  or  function.  For  we  have  no 
ground  to  think  that  the  apostles  had  any  peculiar  com- 
mand for  laying  on  their  hands  upon  persons  in  prayer 
over  them,  or  ordination  of  them.  But  the  thing  itself 
being  enjoined  them,  viz.,  the  setting  apart  some  persons 
for  the  peculiar  work  of  attendance  upon  the  necessities 
of  the  churches  by  them  planted,  they  took  up  and 
made  use  of  a  laudable  rite  and  custom,  then  in  use 
upon  such  occasions.  And  so  we  find  the  apostles 
using  it  in  the  solemn  designation  of  some  persons  to 
the  office  of  deacons  ; — afterward  upon  an  occasion  not 
heard  of  in  the  synagogue, — for  the  conferring  the  gifts 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  although  the  occasion  was 
extraordinary,  yet  the  use  of  that  rite  in  it  was  very 
suitable,  inasmuch  as  those  gifts  did  so  much  answer 
to  the  nrDiy"  (Shekinah)  "and  the  i?nipn  nn"  [the  Holy 
Spirit]  "  which  the  Jews  conceived  did  rest  upon  those 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  31 

who  were  so  ordained  by  imposition  of  hands.  The 
next  time  we  meet  with  this  rite  was  upon  a  peculiar 
designation  to  a  ])articular  service  of  persons  already 
appointed  hy  God  for  the  rvorh  of  the  ministry  which  is 
of  Paul  and  Barnabas  by  the  prophets  and  teachers  at 
Antioch ;  whereby  God  doth  set  forth  the  use  of  that 
rite  of  ordination  to  the  Christian  churches."  Iren. 
pp.  264-271. 

"  Ordination  is  the  solemn  setting  apart  of  a  person  to 
some  public  church  office."  Westminster  Assembly  of 
Divines  ;  examined  and  approved  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly, of  the  Church  of  Scotland. — Neal,  vol.  v.  p.  357 ; 
appendix. 

Mr.  M'Caine  has  taken  pains  to  show  that  the  vali- 
dity of  Presbyterian  ordination  was  established  by 
Mr.  Wesley,  and  is  the  principle  of  the  ordination  of  the 
British  Conference.  But  who  ever  denied  this  ?  Is  it 
not  expressly  and  fully  declared  in  our  Book  of  Disci- 
pline, in  answer  to  the  following  question : — "  If  by 
death,  expulsion,  or  otherwise,  there  be  no  bishop 
remaining  in  our  church,  what  shall  we  do  ?  " 

The  answer  is; — "The  General  Conference  shall 
elect  a  bishop  ;  and  the  elders,  or  any  three  of  them,  who 
shall  he  appointed  hy  the  General  Conference  for  that 
purpose,  shall  ordain  him,  according  to  our  form  of  ordi- 
nation." Chap,  i,  sec.  4,  quest.  2.  And  this  answer 
shows  both  the  good  sense  of  those  who  framed  it,  and 
their  acquaintance  with  ancient  ecclesiastical  usage. 
For,  as  Stillingfleet,  above  quoted,  says,  "  Great  proba- 
bility there  is  that  where  churches  were  planted  by 
presbyters,"  (as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was,) 
"  upon  the  increase  of  churches  and  presbyters,  they 
did,  from  among  themselves,  choose  one  to  be  as  the 
bishop  over  them. — For  we  nowhere  read  in  those  early 
plantations  of  churches,  that  rvhere  there  rvere  preshyters 
already,  they  sent  to  other  churches  to  desire  episcopal 
ordination  from  them.'' — It  is  also  in  exact  accordance 


32  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

with  the  practice  of  the  church  of  Alexandria,  which 
would  not  suffer  the  interference  of  foreign  churches  in 
consecrating  their  bishops,  and  of  which  the  patriarch 
Eutychius,  as  quoted  by  Stillingfleet,  "  expressly  affirms 
that  the  twelve  presbyters  constituted  by  Mark,  upon 
the  vacancy  of  the  see,  did  choose  out  of  their  number 
one  to  be  head  over  the  rest,  and  the  other  eleven  did 
lay  their  hands  upon  him  and  blessed  him,  and  made 
him  patriarch.". 

When  Mr.  M'Caine  asserts,  that  "  neither  are  the 
ordinations  which  he"  (Mr.  Wesley)  "  conferred,  viewed 
by  writers  among  the  English  Methodists — as  favouring 
our  title  of  episcopacy,"  he  stops  short  of  the  phrase- 
ology used  by  the  very  writers  whom  he  quotes.  Their 
language  is,  "  He"  [Mr.  Wesley]  "  gave  up  episcopal 
ordination  as  ufiderstood  hy  high  churchmen^  So  do  we. 
And  so  does  our  Discipline,  clearly  and  unequivocally. 


Section  V. — Ordination  of  Dr.  Coke. 

Having  thus  cleared  our  way,  we  shall  now  take  up 
the  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke. 

"If,"  says  Mr.  M'Caine,  "Mr.  Wesley  ordained  Dr. 
Coke  a  bishop,  in  the  common  acceptation  of  that  term, 
then  did  he  create  a  church  officer  greater  than  himself, 
and  of  consequence  he  brought  himself  into  subjection 
to  Dr.  Coke,  by  making  the  doctor  his  superior."  Again, 
"If  the  doctor  was  constituted  a  bishop,"  ["m  the  com- 
mon acceptation  of  that  term^'  is  here  dropped,]  "he  was 
raised  to  a  rank  above  a  presbyter,  and  invested  with 
superior  powers.  In  that  case  he  that  was  sent  was 
greater  than  he  that  sent  him" — and  "  then  Mr.  Wesley, 
who  was  only  a  presbyter,  and  consequently  inferior  to 
a  bishop,  assumed  the  prerogative  to  send  his  superior 
to  do  a  work,  in  his  name,  which  he  himself  could  not 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  33 

go  to  do."— And  again :  "  If  the  doctor,  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  Mr.  Wesley's  hands,  is  created  a  bishop,  then 
the  objection  of  the  bishop  of  Norwich  Ues  in  full  force 
— '  If  a  presbyter  can  ordain  a  bishop,  then  the  greater 
is  blessed  of  the  less,'  "  &c. 

We  have  already  seen  what  Mr.  M'Caine  represents 
to  be  "  the  common  acceptation"  of  the  term  bishops, 
(which,  by  the  way,  we  have  shown  is  not  the  common 
acceptation,)  viz.,  an  order  of  ministers  distinct  from 
presbyters  by  divine  appointment,  to  whom  the  power 
of  ordination  is  reserved  by  the  same  appointment,  and  is 
the  chief  mark  of  their  distinction  : — and  in  whom,  as 
successors  of  the  apostles,  is  vested  the  exclusive  right 
of  granting  the  divine  commission  to  execute  the  minis- 
terial office. — See  History  and  Mystery,  pp.  9,  10.^ — 
Now  if  Mr.  Wesley  ordained   Dr.  Coke  in  no  such 
sense ; — if  he  pretended  to  no  such  thing ; — if  neither 
our  bishops  nor  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  have 
•ever  pretended  to  any  such  thing, — w^hat  then?    Why 
then  it  foUow^s  that  all  the  smart  sayings  on  this  trans- 
action, which  have  been  repeated  and  copied  from  my 
lord   bishop   of  Norwich   down  to  Mr.  M'Caine,   are 
wholly  wide  of  the  mark,  and  are  shaken  both  from  Mr. 
Wesley  and  from  us,  as  "  the  lion  shakes  to  air  the 
mists  shed  on  his  mane." — They  may  serve  to  mislead 
the  ignorant,  and  such  as  may  be  captivated  by  sound 
more  than  by  sense.     But  as  to  the  argument  they  are 
perfectly  nugatory.— If,  say  Dr.  Whitehead  and  Mr. 
Moore,  Mr.  Wesley's  position  be  true,  that  bishops  and 
presbyters  are  the  same  order,  the  bishop  of  Norwich 
should  have  first  overthrown  this  position,  ii  he  could, 
to  have  established  his  own. 

But  says  Mr.  M'Caine,  "  as  Mr.  Wesley  and  Dr.  Coke 

*  One  of  Mr.  M'Caine's  authorities  is  Archbishop  Potter,  who  was  the 
champion  of  the  High-church  party  ;  while  Dr.  Hoadly,  bishop  of  Win- 
chester, with  great  judgment  and  eloqfience,  advocated  principles  of  greater 
moderation. 


34  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

were  of  the  same  order, — the  doctor  had  as  good  a  cleri- 
cal right  to  ordain  Mr.  Wesley  a  bishop,  as  Mr.  Wesley 
had  to  ordain  the  doctor." — As  good  a  clerical  right ; — 
Mr.  M'Caine  seems  to  have  felt  here  that  his  argument 
was  lame.  He  knows  well  that  the  true  question  is 
not  as  to  the  mere  clerical  power  of  ordination,  abstractly; 
but  whether  in  the  circumstances  then  existing,  as  to 
acknowledged  jurisdiction,  and  the  exigency  of  the 
times,  Dr.  Coke  had  as  good  a  right  to  ordain  and  send 
Mr.  Wesley  to  superintend  the  American  Methodists, 
as  Mr.  Wesley  had  to  summon  a  council  and  to  ordain 
and  send  him  ?  And  whether  it  was  so  regarded  by  the 
Methodists  of  that  day,  either  in  Europe  or  in  America  ? 
The  Methodist  societies  in  America,  although  under 
the  spiritual  direction  of  the  Rev.  John  Wesley  and  his 
assistants,  whom,  under  God,  they  regarded  as  their 
father  and  founder,  yet  previously  to  the  revolutionary 
war  were  reliorious  societies  within  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land,  without  any  provision  among  themselves  for  the 
administration  of  the  ordinances.  From  that  church 
they  were  separated,  let  it  be  carefully  observed,  not  by 
any  schis?n,  or  faction,  or  any  species  of  misconduct  on 
their  part ;  but  by  the  acts  of  Providence,  and  by  cir- 
cumstances wholly  beyond  their  control.  The  Church 
of  England  had  ceased  to  exist  in  America,  and  the 
Methodists  here  were  absolutely  compelled  either  to 
provide  for  themselves,  or  to  live  in  neglect  of  the  posi- 
tive ordinances  of  Christ.  Their  case  was  clearly  that 
of  "  the  exigence  of  necessity,"  agreeably  to  Hooker 
himself ;  and  most  undeniably  so  agreeably  to  the  prin- 
ciples then  advocated  by  Dr.  White.  Our  societies  had 
suffered  long,  as  sheep  without  shepherds.  They  had 
endured  the  privation  of  the  ordinances  till  the  patience 
of  many  had  been  exhausted,  and  a  serious  disunion 
was  threatened ;  if  not  dissolution.  A  portion  of  the 
preachers  and  societies  in  the  south  had  resolved  on 
measures  for  the  administration  of  the  ordinances  among 
3^ 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  35 

themselves.  This  step  was  strenuously  resisted  by  the 
conference  which  met  at  Baltimore  in  1780.  That 
conference  unanimously  disapproved  of  the  measures 
adopted  by  their  brethren  in  Virginia,  and  resolved  that 
they  would  not  regard  them  as  Methodists  in  connexion 
with  Mr.  Wesley,  till  they  came  back ;  and  Francis 
Asbury,  Freeborn  Garrettson,  and  William  Watters 
were  appointed  a  committee  to  attend  the  Virginia  con- 
ference, and  inform  them  of  these  proceedings,  and 
receive  their  answer.  On  that  occasion  Mr.  Asbury 
exerted  his  utmost  influence  to  effect  a  reunion,  and,  in 
conjunction  with  his  colleagues,  happily  succeeded. 
The  proposal  by  which  it  was  accomplished,  after  much 
discussion  and  distress,  originated  with  him.  (See  Mr. 
Snethen's  Reply  to  J.  O 'Kelly,  p.  8,  and  Lee's  History, 
p.  73.)'^  It  was,  that  they  should  consent  to  bear  their 
privations  yet  longer  ; — to  write  to  Mr.  Wesley,  and  lay 
their  situation  before  him,  and  take  his  advice.  This 
proposal  was  agreed  to ;  a  division  was  prevented ;  a 
happy  union  was  restored ;  and  the  preachers  departed 
with  thankful  hearts,  to  persuade  the  people  to  unite 
with  them  in  longer  forbearance. 

Yet  it  was  not  till  several  years  after  this  ; — not  till 
the  Church  of  England  in  America  was  confessedly 
extinct  by  the  acknowledgment  of  our  independence, 
and  all  hope  of  supplies  from  that  quarter  in  any  reason- 
able time,  if  ever,  had  utterly  failed,  that  Mr.  Wesley 
resolved  on  the  adoption  of  the  measures  which,  from 
his  relation  to  the  Methodists  (under  the  true  Head  of 
the  church,)  and  their  urgent  solicitations,  he  had  long 
before  believed  himself  fully  authorized  to  adopt ;  but 
which, /or  peace'  sake,  he  had  many  years  forborne.    On 


*  Mr.  -Watters  says  this  proposal  was  made  "  by  one  of  their  own  party." 
This  apparent  discrepancy  is  explained  by  Mr.  Snethen  in  his  "  Answer  to 
J.  O'Kelly's  Vindication."  Mr.  Asbury  originally  made  the  proposal  to 
John  Dickens,  to  whom  Mr.  Watters  alludes.  John  Dickens  reduced  it  to 
writing,  and  proposed  it  to  the  conference. 


36  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

the  same  principle,  for  peace'  sake,  he  had  desired  the 
bishop  of  London  to  ordain  only  one  preacher  for  Ame- 
rica, but  could  not  prevail.  Driven  to  this  extremity,  vs^ith 
all  his  societies  and  preachers  in  America,  he  summoned 
a  council  of  grave  and  pious  presbyters.  These  were, 
in  conjunction  with  him,  our  body  of  preshijters,  and  with 
their  advice  he  acted.  The  venerable  Fletcher  was  one 
of  the  council,  though  not  present  at  the  subsequent 
ordinations.  Mr.  Wesley's  scruples  were  now  ended, 
and  he  resolved,  with  the  aid  of  other  presbyters,  to 
exercise  that  authority  to  which  he  believed  himself 
called  hy  the  providence  of  God,  and  hy  the  "  necessities 
of  the  times.'" — Now  if  the  episcopacy  of  the  Church  of 
England,  (and  consequently  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  in  this  country,)  rest  on  no  other  foundation 
than  ancient  and  apostolic  ^practice,  we  humbly  submit, 
(in  language  similar  to  that  of  Bishop  White  on  another 
occasion,)  whether  Methodists  would  scarcely  have  been 
deserving  the  name  of  Christians,  if,  rather  than  con- 
sent to  a  temporary  (or  even  to  a  permanent)  deviation 
from  that  line  of  episcopacy,  they  had  abandoned  every 
ordinance  of  positive  and  divine  appointment. 

Bishop  White  states,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  M'Caine,  that 
a  union  of  the  Methodists  in  this  country  with  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church,  was  proposed  by  Dr.  Coke 
in  1791,  the  terms  of  which,  on  the  doctor's  part,  as 
stated  by  Bishop  White,  all  will  admit  were  sufficiently 
humble.  Why  did  that  proposal  fail  ?  It  is  stated,  on 
the  same  authority,  that  it  failed  in  consequence  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  convention  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  before  whom  the  subject  was  laid  in  1792. 
The  Rev.  Dr.  AVyatt  of  Baltimore  published,  in  1820,  a 
similar  statement.  If  this  statement  be  correct,  then 
the  responsibility  for  the  rendering  of  our  deviation 
from  that  line  of  episcopacy  permanent,  rests  on  them. 
The  proposed  union  by  which  our  "  temporary-  devia- 
tion" might  have  been  cured,  according  to  Dr.  White's 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  37 

plan  of  conditional  ordinations,  on  the  principle  of  con- 
ditional baptisms,  was  rejected  by  them.  Is  it  then  for 
them  now  to  reproach  us  with  this  deviation,  which  had 
been  adopted,  clearly,  in  the  "  exigence  of  necessity," 
and  which  they,  as  much  as  in  them  laid,  thus  contri- 
buted to  render  permanent  ?  This  would  be  both  cruel 
and  unchristian.  It  is  not,  we  think,  in  the  power  of 
the  acute st  disputant  to  impugn  the  ground  on  which 
we  stand  without  equally  impugning  that  assumed  by 
Dr.  White  in  "The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches 
Considered :"  nor  to  refute  this  without  refuting  that. 
We  shall  have  occasion  to  revert  again  to  the  state- 
ment respecting  Dr.  Coke's  proposal  to  Bishop  White, 
and  shall  only  add  here,  that,  from  what  we  have  said, 
it  must  plainly  appear  that  the  organization  of  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church  affords  no  colour  of  pretext 
or  of  countenance  to  any  leaders  or  authors  of  schism, 
faction,  disorganization,  or  disunion.  The  proceedings 
of  "our  fathers"  partook  of  no  such  character.  Nor 
can  the  precedent  of  their  example  be  pleaded  by  the 
instigators  or  abetters  of  any  such  disorders. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  letters  testimonial  de^ 
livered  by  Mr.  Wesley  to  Dr.  Coke,  after  his  ordination, 
agreeably  to  the  advice  of  Mr.  Fletcher.  It  was  taken 
by  Mr.  Drew  from  the  original,  in  Mr.  Wesley's  own 
hand-writing,  preserved  among  the  papers  of  Dr. 
Coke. 

"To  all  to   whom  these   presents   shall  come,   John 
Wesley,  late  fellow  of  Lincoln  College  in  Oxford, 
presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  sendeth  greeting. 
"  Wliereas  many  of  the  people  in  the  southern  pro- 
vinces of  North  America,  who  desire  to  continue  under 
my  care,  and  still  adhere  to  the  doctrine  and  discipline 
of  the  Church  of  England,  are  greatly  distressed  for 
want  of  ministers  to  administer  the  sacraments  of  bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  supper,  according  to  the  usage  of 


38  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

the  same  church :  and  whereas  there  does  not  appear  to 
be  any  other  way  of  supplying  them  with  ministers — 

"  Know  all  men,  that  I,  John  Wesley,  think  myself 
to  be  providentially  called  at  this  time  to  set  apart  some 
persons  for  the  work  of  the  ministry  in  America.  And 
therefore,  under  the  protection  of  Almighty  God,  and 
with  a  single  eye  to  his  glory,  I  have  this  day  set  apart 
as  a  superintendent,  by  the  imposition  of  my  hands  and 
prayer,  (being  assisted  by  other  ordained  ministers,) 
Thomas  Coke,  doctor  of  civil  law,  a  presbyter  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  a  man  whom  I  judge  to  be 
well  qualified  for  that  great  work.  And  I  do  hereby 
recommend  him  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  as  a  fit 
person  to  preside  over  the  flock  of  Christ.  In  testimony 
whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal,  this 
second  day  of  September,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one 
thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty-four. 

"John  Wesley." 

This  document  leads  us  to  remark ;  1.  Mr.  M'Caine 
says,  (p.  21,)  it  is  not  a  letter  "  of  ordination,"  but  of 
"appointment." — Why?  Because  "the  term  'ordina- 
tion' is  not  found  in  it."  And  is  the  term  "  appointment" 
found  in  it  ?  If  it  be  good  logic  that  because  the  term 
"  ordination"  is  not  found  in  it,  therefore  it  is  not  a  letter 
of  ordination ;  surely  it  is  equally  so  that  because  the 
term  "  appointment"  is  not  found  in  it,  therefore  it  is  not 
a  letter  of  appointment.  According  to  this  logic,  it  may 
be  questioned  whether  Mr.  M'Caine  himself  has  ever 
been  either  ordained  or  appointed  an  elder  ;  for  we  sus- 
pect that  neither  the  term  ordained  nor  appointed  will 
be  found  in  his  credentials.  On  Mr.  M'Caine's  prin- 
ciples of  verhality,  this  document  should  be  called  a 
letter  of  ^'  set  apart  V  for  these  are  the  words  used  by 
Mr.  Wesley.  This  is  a  specimen  of  Mr.  M'Caine's 
logic  in  the  management  of  documents.  A  similar  one 
will  be  found  when  we  come  to  the  term  bishop. 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  39 

2.  If  this  were  not  an  ordination,  we  should  be  glad 
to  be  informed  what  constitutes  one.  It  was  performed 
as  ordinations  usually  are  ;  with  the  usual  solemnities ; 
— by  "  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer ;"  with  the 
assistance  of  "  other  ordained  ministers  ;"  and  "  under 
the  protection  of  Almighty  God."  If  it  was  not  intended 
as  an  ordination,  it  was  certainly  a  very  solemn  mock- 
ery ; — a  trilling  with  sacred  things,  to  charge  Mr.  Wesley 
with  which  would  be  loading  his  memory  wdth  "  obloquy" 
indeed. 

3.  With  what  office  did  Mr.  Wesley,  by  these  solem- 
nities, and  by  this  instrument,  intend  to  invest  Dr.  Coke  ? 
Not  with  the  ejnscopal  office,  says  Mr.  M'Caine.  Why  ? 
— Because  the  term  "  episcopal "  was  not  used.  Let  us 
take  the  w^ords  then  that  were  used.  Dr.  Coke,  who 
was  already  a  presbyter,  was  "  set  apart"  by  Mr.  Wesley, 
assisted  by  other  presbyters,  "  as  a  superintendent — "  to 
preside  over  the  flock  of  Christ,^''  or,  as  he  expressed  it  in 
his  letter  "  to  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,"  &c.,  dated  a  few 
days  subsequently,  "  over  our  brethren  in  North  America," 
— to  superintend,  and  preside  over,  the  whole  body  of 
the  Methodist  preachers  on  this  continent,  with  hun- 
dreds, if  not  thousands  of  cong-reorations,  and  tens  of 
thousands  of  members : — to  ordain  other  ministers,  and 
to  exercise  all  the  powers  usually  considered  episcopal. 
Indeed,  the  allegation  has  usually  been  that  the  powers 
with  which  our  superintendents  were  confessedly  in- 
vested from  the  com??iencement, — and  with  Mr.  Wesley's 
sanction,  were  too  great  even  for  an  episcopacy.  And 
will  Mr.  M'Caine,  then,  yet  contend,  that  Mr.  Wesley 
did  not  intend  that  the  office  of  our  general  superintend- 
ents in  America  should  be  an  episcopal  office  in  fact, 
though  under  the  title  of  superintendents  ?  Will  he  so 
far  jeopard  his  reputation  both  for  understanding  and 
for  candour?  To  waste  time  on  such  a  question  would 
really  seem  to  us  to  be  trifling  both  with  ourselves  and 
with  our  readers. 


40  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

4.  Mr.  Wesley  says  that  those  who  desired  his  ad- 
vice and  help  "  adhered  to  the  doctrine  and  discipline 
of  the  Church  of  England,"  and  were  "  greatly  dis- 
tressed for  want  of  ministers  to  administer  the  sacra- 
ments— according  to  the  usage  of  the  same  church.''^ 
Were  not  the  "discipline"  and  the  "usage"  of  that 
church  episcopal?  And  does  not  Mr.  Wesley,  in  this 
instrument,  plainly  declare  his  intention  to  follow  that 
discipline  and  usage,  so  far  as  he  could,  without  en- 
tangling us  again  with  the  English  hierarchy  ? 

Mr.  M'Caine,  indeed,  would  make  out  that  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's'intention  was  that  we  should  continue  connected 
with  the  Church  of  England.  But  the  contrary  is  plain. 
The  wide  difference  between  the  case  of  the  Methodist 
societies  in  England  and  those  in  this  country,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  revolutionary  war,  Mr.  Wesley  himself 
clearly  defines.  "  The  case,"  he  says,  "  is  widely  differ- 
ent between  England  and  North  America.  Our  Ame- 
rican brethren  are  now  totalhj  disentangled — from  the 
English  hierarchy — we  dare  not  entangle  them  again. 
They  are  now  at  full  lihertyi  simply  to  follow  the  Scrip- 
tures and  the  primitive  church.  And  we  judge  it  best 
that  they  should  standfast  in  that  liberty. '^ 

5.  Mr.  Wesley,  in  this  document,  assigns  as  one  of 
the  grounds  of  his  proceeding,  precisely  that  basis  of 
"  the  exigence  of  necessity,"  in  which  both  the  propriety 
and  the  duty  of  a  similar  proceeding  on  the  part  of 
"  the  Episcopal  churches,"  even  at  an  earlier  period, 
had  been  so  ably  advocated  by  Dr.  White.  "And 
whereas,"  he  says,  "there  does  not  appear  to  be  any 
other  way  of  supplying  them  with  ministers." — He  had, 
for  peace'  sake,  previously  applied  to  the  bishop  of 
London  to  ordain  one  only,  but  could  not  prevail.  And 
if  the  English  bishops  would  even  have  consented,  he 
knew  the  slowness  of  their  proceedings ;  and  the  matter 
admitted  of  no  delay. "^ 

*  In  1783,  and  we  think  earlier,  Dr.  White  maintained  that  this  "exi- 
gence of  necessity"  then  existed  in  "  the  Episcopal  churches."     Yet  they 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  41 

6.  If  the  ''fuller  powers, ^^  whicli  Mr.  Wesley  desired 
Dr.  Coke  to  meet  him  in  Bristol  to  receive,  were  not 
episcopal  mfact,  what  were  they  ?  Dr.  Coke  was  already 
a  presbyter ;  and  as  to  the  mere  "  appointing"  of  super- 
intendents, in  a  lower  sense,  to  take  charge  of  societies 
as  Mr.  Wesley's  assistants,  it  would  have  been  a  perfect 
novelty  in  Methodism  to  have  used  such  ceremonies 
barely  for  that  purpose.  Mr.  Rankin  and  Mr.  Asbury 
had  both  been  superintendents  in  America,  in  this  sense, 
as  Mr.  Wesley's  assistants,  without  any  such  ceremo- 
nies. And,  as  a  conclusive  argument  against  such  a 
view  of  this  transaction,  we  add, — if  Mr.  Wesley,  by 
setting  apart  Dr.  Coke,  and  investing  him  with  "  fuller 
powers,"  meant  barely  to  "  appoint"  him  a  superintend- 
ent, as  his  assistant,  in  the  sense  in  which  he  had  ordi- 
narily used  this  term,  then  it  would  have  been  utterly 
inconsistent  with  his  known  principle  to  have  associ- 
ated Mr.  Creighton,  Mr.  Whatcoat,  and  Mr.  Vasey, 
with  him,  in  making  the  appointment. 

7.  If  Mr.  Wesley's  preferring  the  title  "  superintend- 
ent," proves  that  Dr.  Coke,  under  that  title,  was  not 
intended  by  Mr.  Wesley  to  be  a  bishop  in  fact,  it  equally 
follows  that  his  preferring  the  title  "  elder"  proves  that 

did  not  succeed  in  obtaining  ordination  from  the  English  bishops  till  1787; 
and  even  then  not  until  it  was  authorized  by  an  act  of  parliament.  Dr.  Sea- 
bury  had  previously  succeeded  in  obtaining  ordination  from  the  nonjuring 
bishops  of  Scotland,  though  he  could  not  from  the  English  bishops.  But 
even  this  was  not  till  after  the  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke  as  a  general  super- 
intendent. When  some  young  gentlemen  went  to  England,  after  the  revo- 
lution, to  obtain  episcopal  ordination,  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  was  of 
opinion  that  no  English  bishop  could  ordain  them  unless  they  took  the  oath 
of  allegiance.  Mr.  Southey  says  they  then  applied  for  advice  and  assist- 
ance to  Dr.  Franklin,  who  was  then  our  minister  in  France.  He  consulted 
a  French  clergyman,  and  found  that  they  could  not  be  ordained  in  France, 
unless  they  vowed  obedience  to  the  archbishop  of  Paris  ;  and  the  pope's 
nuncio,  whom  he  consulted  also,  informed  him  that  the  Romish  bishop  in 
America  could  not  lay  hands  on  them  unless  they  turned  Catholics.  Frank- 
lin therefore  advised  them,  either  that  the  Episcopalian  clergy  in  America 
should  become  Presbyterians,  or  that  they  should  elect  a  bishop  for  them- 
selves. So  true  it  was,  as  Mr.  Wesley  said,  he  knew  the  slowness  and  the 
entanglingness  of  iheir  proceedings ;  and  such  was  Franklin's  advice  in  the 
^se. 


42  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

he  did  not  intend  Mr.  Whatcoat  and  Mr.  Vasey  to  be 
priests,  or  presbyters,  in  fact.  The  argument  is  as 
good  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  The  forms  of 
ordination  prepared  for  us  by  Mr.  Wesley,  for  setting 
apart  our  superintendents  and  elders,  as  we  shall  here- 
after show,  were  merely  an  abridgment  of  the  forms  of 
the  Church  of  England  for  setting  apart  hishops  and 
priests.  And  as  he  substituted  the  term  superintendent 
for  bishop,  so  he  also  substituted  the  term  elder  for 
priest ; — clearly  intending  substantially  the  same  eccle- 
siastical officers  in  each  case,  but  not  the  same  titles. 

8.  'That  in  such  an  "  exigence  of  necessity"  as  then 
existed,  and  at  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  it  was  admissible  for  a  body  of  presby- 
ters to  constitute  a  hishop  in  fact,  in  our  acceptation  of 
the  term,  with  the  title  of  superintendent,  president, 
inspector,  or  overseer,  as  they  judged  best,  we  have 
already  supported  by  abundant  evidence. 

9.  When  Lord  King  lays  it  down  as  the  primitive 
usage  that  there  was  "  but  one  supreme  bishop  in  a 
place,"  he  uses  the  term  expressly  in  relation  to  "  the 
proper  pastor  or  minister  of  a  parish,  having  care  of 
the  souls  of  that  church  or  parish ;"  though  in  some 
cases  there  were  other  ministers  subordinately  connected 
with  him,  and  assisting  him.  In  this  sense  we  admit 
that  there  ought  to  be  but  one  bishop,  or  minister  having 
the  pastoral  charge,  in  one  place.  And  this  is  our  usage. 
But  that  in  the  apostles'  time  there  were  individuals 
travelling  extensively  as  superintendents,  bishops,  in- 
spectors, or  overseers,  in  a  larger  sphere,  and  setting  in 
order  the  things  that  were  wanting  in  multitudes  of 
churches,  is  undeniable.  Whether  such  church  officers 
were  extraordinarij,  or  no,  as  Stillingfleet  says,  we  now 
dispute  not :  but  whether  they  be  repugnant  to  the  gos- 
pel or  no ; — which,  from  their  practice,  as  he  adds,  it 
is  evident  that  they  are  not.  That  what  was  epctraor- 
dinary  in  the  apostolic  oversight,  and  in  that  of  Timothy 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  43 

and  Titus,  did  cease  with  them,  may  be  admitted.  But 
the  question  remains,  what  was  extraordinary,  and  what 
was  not  ?  For  surely  not  every  practice  and  nsage  of 
the  apostles  was  intended  to  cease  with  them.  For  then 
the  office  of  preaching  itself  must  cease,  for  this  was 
their  main  office.  Besides,  by  ceasing,  may  be  meant, 
either  ceasing  as  to  its  necessity,  or  as  to  its  lawfulness. 
And  to  make  a  thing  unlawful,  which  was  before  layvful, 
there  ought  to  be  some  express  prohibition  of  it :  which, 
in  this  case,  we  suppose,  with  Stillingfleet,  men  will  not 
easily  produce  in  the  word  of  God.  And  admitting  the 
lawfulness  of  our  practice  in  this  respect,  the  expediency 
and  utility  of  it  must  be  judged  by  those  whose  concern 
it  is.  That  such  an  itinerant  and  extensive  oversight  as 
was  practised  by  the  apostles,  and  by  Timothy  and 
Titus,  fell  greatly  into  disuse  very  shortly  after  their 
decease,  is  true.  But  surely  it  cannot  be  conclusively 
inferred  from  this  that  it  is  unlawful  to  revive  a  similar 
superintendency  in  churches  which  may  desire  it,  and 
believe  it  to  be  both  practicable  and  useful.  Such  an 
episcopacy,  as  Mr.  Wesley  says  of  "  the  episcopal  form 
of  church  government,"  we  beUeve  to  be  both  Scriptural 
and  apostohcal.  We  mean,  as  he  adds,  "  well  agreeing 
both  with  the  practice  and  with  the  writings  of  the 
apostles." 

That  "  plain  John  Wesley,  the  fountain  of  our  epis- 
copal authority,"  should  be  ''  improved  into  father 
Wesley"  is  made  by  Mr.  M'Caine,  p.  53,  a  matter  of 
ridicule.  But  when  he  wrote  this,  he  probably  forgot 
that,  when  it  suited  his  purpose,  he  had  himself  used 
the  same  language.  "Mr.  Wesley,"  he  says,  p.  23, 
"  considered  himself,  under  God,  the  father  of  all  the 
Methodists  in  Europe  and  America."  And  again,  p.  43, 
when  he  wished  to  represent  it  as  odious  in  our  fathers 
not  to  have  implicitly  obeyed  the  wish  of  Mr.  Wesley 
on  a  particular  occasion,  then  he  is  careful  himself  to 


44  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

improve  "plain  John  Wesley,"  into  "  the  father  of  the 
Methodist  people." 

This  relation,  however,  Mr.  Wesley  did  himself  ex- 
pressly claim;  and  the  claim  was  recognised  by  the 
whole  body  of  Methodists,  both  in  Europe  and  in  Ame- 
rica. ''  You,"  said  he  to  Mr.  Asbury,  "  are  the  elder 
brother  of  the  American  Methodists.  I  am,  under  God, 
the  father  of  the  whole  family.  Therefore  I  naturally 
care  for  you  all  in  a  manner  no  other  person  can  do. 
Therefore  I,  in  a  measure,  provide  for  you  all."  And 
in  the  secondary  sense  of  Theodoret,  Fregevil,  and  Stil- 
ling&eet,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  denominate  him  the 
apostle  of  the  whole  Methodist  people,  obnoxious  as 
that  term  is  to  Mr.  M'Caine  ;  and  even  to  assert,  that  he 
did  mfact  claim  and  exercise  episcopal  authority  among 
them ;  and  that  both  he  and  they  believed  that  in  all 
this  he  acted  in  the  order  of  Divine  providence. 

Mr.  Wesley  did  himself  assert  that  he  believed  him- 
self to  be  "a  Scriptm-al  ETnaKonog,  episcopos,  as  much 
as  any  man  in  England  or  in  Europe."  Moore's  Life  of 
Wesley,  vol.  ii,  p.  280.  And  he  asserted  this  with 
direct  reference  to  his  "  acting  as  a  bishop,''  in  reply  to 
the  remarks  of  his  brother  Charles.  If  by  episcopos 
he  did  not  mean  to  aver  himself  a  hishop  in  fact,  and 
entitled  to  ''  act  as  a  bishop,"  in  our  acceptation  of  the 
term,  then  his  reply  did  not  meet  his  brother's  objection, 
but  was  a  mere  evasion ;  and  one  too  shallow,  though 
mantled  in  Greek,  to  deceive,  or  to  satisfy,  so  good  a 
scholar  as  his  brother  Charles.  That  he  meant  that  he 
was  an  episcopos,  merely  in  the  sense  of  being  the 
proper  pastor  of  a  particular  congregation  or  parish, 
cannot  be :  for  such  he  was  not.  Yet,  although  he  did 
believe  himself  entitled  to  exercise  episcopal  authority 
among  the  Methodists ;  as  much  so  as  any  bishop  of 
the  Church  of  England — in  the  Church  of  England,  it 
should  be  carefully  noted  that  for  peace'  sake,  he  re- 
frained from  the  exercise  of  it  with  respect  to  ordina- 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  45 

tion,  till  imperiously  -urged  to  it  by  the  "  exigence  of 
necessity ;"  and  until,  if  he  had  refused  longer,  he  must 
have  permitted  his  numerous  societies  in  America,  who 
were  loudly  calling  on  him  for  advice  and  help,  to  live 
in  the  neglect  of  imperative  ordinances  of  Christ's  posi- 
tive institution.  In  any  reference  to  the  precedent  of 
Mr.  Wesley's  example,  then,  we  shall  do  him  great  in- 
justice, if  we  are  not  careful  always  to  combine  all 
these  various  views,  relations,  and  circumstances.  In 
relation  to  the  general  church,  or  to  the  Church  of 
England,  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Wesley,  as  presbyters,  were 
undoubtedly  equal  in  order.  Yet  that  their  acknow- 
ledged jurisdiction,  in  relation  to  the  Methodist  societies, 
was  vastly  different  in  Dr.  Coke's  own  view,  and  that 
he  knew  it  to  be  so  regarded  by  the  Methodist  people, 
is  manifest  from  the  following  extract  of  a  letter  which 
he  addressed  to  Mr.  Wesley  previously  to  his  coming  to 
America. 

"  Honoured  and  Dear  Sir, 

"  The  more  maturely  I  consider  the  subject,  the  more 
expedient  it  appears  to  me  that  the  power  of  ordaining 
others"  [having  reference  to  the  ordination  to  be  esta- 
blished for  the  Methodists  in  America]  "  should  be 
received  by  me  from  you^  by  the  imposition  of  your 

hands; an   authority  formally  received  from 

you  will  (I  am  conscious  of  it)  be  fully  admitted  by  the 
people  ;  and  my  exercising  the  office  of  ordination  with- 
out that  formal  authority  may  be  disputed,  if  there  be 
any  opposition  on  any  other  account.  I  could  therefore 
earnestly  wish  you  would  exercise  that  power  in  this 
instance,  which  I  have  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt, 
but  God  hath  invested  you  with,  for  the  good  of  our 
connection."    Moore's  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  p.  276.'^ 

*  Yet,  in  the  face  of  this  broad  declaration,  Mr.  M'Caine  repeatedly 
endeavours  to  make  out  that  Dr.  Coke  xoas  doubtful  of  the  validity  of  his 
own  ordination. 


46  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 


Section  VI. — Dr.  Coke's  Letter  to  Bishop  White, 

In  a  letter  to  Bishop  White  of  Pennsylvania,  dated  24th: 
April,  1791,  Dr.  Coke  says,  Mr.  Wesley  "did  indeed 
solemnly  invest  me,  as  far  as  he  had  a  right  so  to  do, 
vi^ith  episcopal  authority."  On  this  phrase,  "  as  far  as 
he  had  a  right  so  to  do,"  Mr.  M'Caine  declaims  vv^ith 
great  self-gratulation.  And  connecting  with  it  what  he 
calls  Dr.  Coke's  "  proposals  to  Bishop  White,  to  have 
the'preachers  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  reor- 
dained  by  Bishop  White,  and  himself  and  the  gentle- 
man connected  with  him,  consecrated  for  the  episcopal 
office,"  he  exults  in  these  figments,  as  if  he  had  con- 
victed Dr.  Coke  out  of  his  own  mouth,  that  he  did  doubt 
the  validity  of  his  own  ordination,  and  consequently  his 
right  to  ordain  others  ;  although  Dr.  Coke  constantly 
affirmed  that  he  did  not  doubt  it,  nor  had  a  shadow  of 
a  douht  of  it ;  and  was  in  the  constant  practice  of  ordain- 
ing others. 

Mr.  M'Caine  has  been  careful  to  collect  into  his  pam- 
phlet the  stale  objections  of  the  enemies  not  only  of  our 
episcopacy,  but  of  our  whole  ministry  and  order — and, 
if  we  are  to  be  governed  by  his  authorities,  his  own 
ordination  as  an  elder  is  not  one  whit  more  valid  than 
the  episcopal  ordination  of  our  bishops.  If  the  reader 
will  turn  to  p.  10  of  "History  and  Mystery,"  &c.,  he 
will  find  a  passage,  which  we  have  already  quoted, 
commencing  thus  :  "  It  is  a  principle  universally  es- 
tablished among  Episcopalians,"  &c.  Mr.  M'Caine 
marks  that  passage  as  a  quotation,  yet  gives  no  author- 
ity for  it ;  although  in  every  other  instance  under  that 
head  he  names  his  authority.  Why  did  he  not  name  it 
in  this  ?  Was  it  not  because  he  was  himself  ashamed 
of  it?  Because  it  was  taken  from  an  avowed  and 
personal  enemy  of  our  whole  order ;  who  denied  the 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  47 

validity  of  every  gospel  ordinance  as  administered  by 
us ;  and  who,  with  all  the  effrontery  of  Rome,  asserts 
in  the  very  next  paragraph  to  that  which  Mr.  M'Caine 
cites,  that  "no  true  church  can  exist  without  a  true 
episcopacy,  and  that  no  episcopacy  can  be  a  true  one 
but  that  which  is  derived  from  the  holy  apostles  in  the 
order  of  bishops  as  superior  to,  and  distinct  from,  the 
order  of  presbyters  ?"  The  author  of  that  pamphlet, 
after  having  separated  himself  from  the  Methodist 
Church,  exerted  what  skill  he  had  to  prove  us  guilty  of 
schism,  and  destitute  of  every  valid  gospel  ordinance. 
From  that  pamphlet,  if  we  may  judge  from  their  cor- 
respondence, Mr.  M'Caine  has  drawn  his  materials  on 
the  subject  of  this  section  ;  but  has  not  had  the  candour 
to  inform  his  readers  that  there  has  ever  been  any  refu- 
tation of  that  author's  aspersions. 

The  laboured  declamation  of  Mr.  M'Caine  on  this  sub- 
ject, as,  indeed,  a  large  portion  of  his  book,  is  founded 
on  an  entire  misconception  or  misrepresentation  of 
Methodist  episcopacy.  Mr.  Wesley  invested  Dr.  Coke 
with  "  episcopal  authoritif  in  relation  to  the  Methodists 
in  America.  In  relation  to  other  churches,  Dr.  Coke 
had  no  "  episcopal  authority  ;"  nor  did  Mr.  Wesley  claim 
a  right  to  give  him  any.  In  this  respect  his  language 
was  considerate  and  precise.  Neither  have  the  bishops 
of  other  churches  any  "  episcopal  authority"  in  relation 
to  us,  nor  could  they  confer  such  authority  among  us  on 
any  individual  without  our  act. 

Had  Dr.  Coke,  for  the  sake  of  union  with  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church,  consented  to  submit  to  a 
second  episcopal  ordination,  or  "  consecration,"  it  would 
by  no  means  have  proved  that  he  therefore  acknow- 
ledged, or  even  doubted,  the  validity  of  his  prior  ordi- 
nation.. It  is  well  known  that  some  Methodist  pres- 
byters, who  have  joined  other  churches,  have  submitted 
to  a  second  ordination,  not  for  their  own  satisfactio7i,  but 
for  the  satisfaction  of  others,  and  because  it  was  required 


48  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

of  them  in  order  to  the  union.  The  case  would  have 
been  analogous,  had  Dr.  Coke  submitted  to  a  second 
episcopal  ordination,  for  the  sake  of  union  with  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  With  his  views  at  that 
time  of  the  probable  effects  of  such  a  union,  he  might 
not  have  considered  it  wrong,  in  such  circumstances,  to 
submit  to  a  reordination.  That  such  were  the  prin- 
ciples by  which  he  was  actuated,  we  have  his  own  posi- 
tive declarations.  An  authenticated  copy  of  a  letter 
which  he  addressed  to  Bishop  Asbury  on  the  subject  is 
now  before  us,  dated,  "  Near  Leeds,  Feb.  2,  1808."  In 
this  letter  he  states  that  he  had  heard  that  there  had 
been  a  paper  war  concerning  a  letter  which  he  wrote, 
in  the  year  1791,  to  Bishop  White.  He  acknowledges 
that  when  he  wrote  that  letter  he  did  then  believe  that 
the  union  which  he  proposed  would  have  a  good  effect. 
And  particularly  that  "  it  would  very  much  enlarge  our 
field  of  action,  and  that  myriads  would,  in  consequence 
of  it,  attend  our  ministry,  who  were  then  much  'preju- 
diced against  us."  He  adds,  however,  that  he  had  no 
idea  of  "deciding"  on  any  thing; — that  such  an  idea, 
without  the  concurrence  of  Bishop  Asbury  and  of  the 
General  Conference,  would  have  been  absurd,  and  that 
what  he  did  was  intended  to  ascertain  the  sense  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  preparatory  to  the  Gene- 
ral Conference  ;  but  at  the  same  time  he  expressly 
declares,  "  I  never  applied  to  the  convention  for  recon- 
secration.  I  never  intended  that  either  you  or  I  should 
give  up  our  episcopal  ordination.  My  proposals  secured 
our  discipline  in  all  points^  And  afterward  adds,  "  But 
I  now  see  that  the  failure  of  my  plan,  which  was  laid 
down  from  the  purest  motives,  was  for  the  best."  The 
Rev.  Ezekiel  Cooper  has  in  his  possession  an  original 
letter  from  Dr.  Coke  to  himself,  of  the  same  import. 

Bishop  White  states  that  one  of  the  outlines  of  Dr. 
Coke's  plan,  as  to  *'  the  Methodist  ministers,"  was  "  ih^ir 
continuing  under  the  superinte7idence  the?i  existing,  and  on 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  49 

the  practices  of  their  peculiar  institutions."  This  coin- 
cides with  Dr.  Coke's  statement.  Bishop  White  adds, 
"  There  was  also  suggested  by  him  a  propriety,  but  not 
a  condition  made,  of  admitting  to  the  episcopacy  him- 
self and  the  gentleman  associated  wdth  him  in  the  super- 
intendence of  the  Methodist  societies."  This  sug-o^es- 
tion,  so  far  as  w^e  can  discover,  is  not  to  be  found  in 
Dr.  Coke's  letter.  It  is  true,  Bishop  White  says  in  an- 
other place,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  M'Caine  in  a  note,  "  Or  it 
may  have  been  the  consecration  -of  himself,"  [Dr.  Coke,] 
"  and  the  gentleman  connected  with  him,  for  this  mea- 
sure was  hinted  in  a  conversation  that  afterward  took 
place  between  us."  The  very  terms  of  this  note  show 
doubt  on  the  face  of  it.  And  as  we  shall  presently  de- 
monstrate that  Bishop  White  mistook  the  import  of  Dr. 
Coke's  letter,  it  must  be  admitted  to  be  possible  that  he 
might  at  least  equally  have  misapprehended  a  hint  in 
conversation.  But  why  does  Mr.  M'Caine  commence 
his  quotation  from  Bishop  White's  letter  of  Sept.,  1806, 
in  this  broken  manner,  ''  Or  it  may  have  been,"  &c.  ? 
What  went  before  "  Or?^'  and  why  w^as  it  not  quoted? 
If  we  examine  the  preceding  part  of  that  paragraph  in 
Bishop  White's  letter,  the  reason  is  obvious.  It  did  not 
suit  Mr.  M'Caine's  purpose.  Bishop  White  was  conjec- 
turing by  what  means  Dr.  Coke  had  probably  contem- 
plated the  removal  of  a  difficulty  on  the  part  of  some 
of  the  preachers  in  rising  up  to  ordination,  if  it  were  left 
dependent  on  the  then  bishops  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church.  That  difficulty  respected  those  preachers 
who  were  not  acquainted  with  the  learned  languages. 
"  What  was  his  intended  mean  of  removal  of  this  diffi- 
culty," sa3^s  Bishop  White,  "  does  not  appear  in  the 
letter.  It  may  have  heen  a  promise,  on  the  part  of  the 
bishops,  that  the  ordination  of  the  persons  in  question 
should  not  be  prevented  by  that  circumstance.  Or  it 
may  have  been,''  &c.,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  M'Caine.  The 
whole  passage,  taken  together,  shows  that  it  was  conjec- 
^  4 


50  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

tural.  As  such  we  leave  it.  The  propensity  of  the 
human  mind  to  conjecture  what  is  most  accordant  with 
its  own  habits  of  thinking,  or  what  is  best  calculated  to 
support  its  own  views,  is  too  well  known  to  require  dis- 
cussion here. 

But  even  admitting  that  Bishop  White  may  havO'been 
correct  in  his  impression,  that  Dr.  Coke  did  hint  in 
conversation  the  propriety  of  admitting  to  the  episco- 
pacy himself  and  the  gentleman  associated  with  him,  in 
case  of  union  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  it 
md^  be  easily  accounted  for  on  Bishop  White's  own 
principles,  without  supposing  Dr.  Coke  by  any  means 
to  have  intended  to  admit  the  nullity  of  his  former  epis- 
copal ordination.  Dr.  Coke  might,  at  that  time,  have 
thought  it  expedient,  if  a  union  took  place,  in  order  to 
gain  the  more,  and  to  enlarge  our  field  of  action,  to 
accommodate  himself  to  the  prejudices  of  those  who 
deemed  what  they  termed  the  "  succession,"  of  import- 
ance. This  was  precisely  what  Bishop  White  himself 
had  proposed  but  a  few  years  before,  in  "  The  Case  of 
the  Episcopal  Churches  Considered." — "  If,"  said  he, 
"  such"  [measures]  "  as  have  been  above  recommended 
should  be  adopted,"  [viz.,  admitting  to  the  ministry  by  a 
clergyman  elected  as  permanent  president,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  other  clergymen,]  "  and  the  episcopal  succes- 
sion afterward  obtained,  any  supposed  imperfections  of 
the  intermediate  ordinations  might,  if  it  were  judged 
proper,  be  supplied  witlimit  acJcnorvledging  their  nullity, 
by  a  conditional  ordination,  resembling  that  of  condi- 
tional baptism."     P.  17. 

But  7ve  conjecture  if  Dr.  Coke  did  hint  or  suggest  the 
propriety  of  admitting  to  the  episcopacy,  in  union  with 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  himself  and  the  gen- 
tleman connected  with  him,  he  either  meant  that  they 
should  be  so  admitted  without  reconsecration ;  or,  if 
with  reconsecration,  then  it  was  that  he  would  submit 
to  this  for  the  sake  of  being  77iore  extensively  useful 
4* 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  51 

.  among  those  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  who 
might  deem  it  of  importance,  in  case  of  such  a  union, 
and  not  at  all  because  he  deemed  it  of  any  sort  of  con- 
sequence,— much  less  of  necessity,  either  for  himself 
or  for  the  Methodists. 

But  we  have  said  that  Bishop  White  mistook  the  im- 
port of  Dr.  Coke's  letter,  and  may  possibly  have  equally 
mistaken  the  import  of  what  he  considered  a  hint  in 
conversation.     It  remains  to  show  this. 

In  his  letter  of  July,  1804,  Bishop  Wliite  says,  "The 
general  outlines  of  Dr.  Coke's  plan  were  a  reordination 
of  the  Methodist  ministers,"  &c.  In  the  letter  of  Sept., 
1806,  he  expresses  it  thus :  "  His  plan"  [Dr.  Coke's] 
*'  was,  that  all  the  ordained  ministers  then  in  the  Me- 
thodist connection  should  receive  episcopal  ordination." 
Now  let  us  turn  to  Dr.  Coke's  own  language,  as  con- 
tained in  his  letter  to  Bishop  White,  dated  April  24, 
1791.  "  Our  ordained  ministers,"  says  Dr.  Coke,  '^  will 
not,  OUGHT  NOT,  to  give  up  their  right  of  administering  the 
sacraments."  Here  their  then  existing  '''right'  to  adminis- 
ter the  sacraments  is  expressly  asserted,  and  also  their 
obligation  not  to  give  it  up,  being  a  "  right''  of  a  sacred 
character,  already  vested.  The  validity  of  their  ordina- 
tion is,  in  this  passage,  unequivocally  averred.  Yet  Dr. 
Coke  adds,  "  I  don't  think  that  the  generality  of  them, 
perhaps  none  of  them,  would  refuse  to  submit  to  a  reor- 
dination, if  other  hinderances  were  removed  out  of  the 
way."  Now  we  ask,  in  the  name  of  candour,  if  there 
be  no  difference  between  saying  it  was  Dr.  Coke's  plan, 
— as  if  it  had  been  proposed  by  him  as  a  thing  deemed 
necessary  by  himself,  that  all  the  ordained  Methodist 
ministers  should  be  reordained, — and  his  averring  that 
they  ought  not  to  give  up  the  "  right"  which  they  pre- 
viously possessed  of  administering  the  sacraments; 
though  he  did  not  think  that  most  of  them,  perhaps  none 
of  them,  would  refuse  to  submit  to  reordination,  if  their 
crnnyliance  in  that  respect  should  be  the  only  remaining 


52  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

hinderance  to  a  union  ? — The  difference  to  us  is  clear. 
And  we  believe  it  will  be  equally  plain  to  every  impar- 
tial and  candid  reader. 

But  we  will  go  farther,  and  say,  had  it  even  been  Dr. 
Coke's  "  plan"  that  all  the  ordained  Methodist  ministers 
should  be  reordained,  in  case  of  a  union  with  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church,  it  could  not  have  been  because 
he  admitted  the  nullity  of  their  existing  ordination, 
unless  he  palpably  contradicted  himself  in  the  same 
breath.  The  principle  of  such  a  proposal,  had  it  been 
made,  could  have  been  no  other,  from  the  evidence 
before  us,  than  that  above  stated,  viz.,  a  willingness,  for 
the  sake  of  more  extensive  usefulness,  to  accommodate 
himself  to  the  prejudices  of  others,  when  he  did  not 
believe  that  his  doing  so  would  be  sinful.  The  justifia- 
bleness,  and  even  the  expediency  of  such  a  course, 
without  admitting  the  nullity  of  former  ordinations,  had 
been  previously  to  that  time  amply  vindicated  by  Bishop 
White  himself,  in  the  case  of  the  Episcopal  churches. 
That  pamphlet  Dr.  Coke  had  no  doubt  seen,  and  it  is 
highly  probable  that  that  very  work  had  a  principal 
influence  in  inducing  him  to  approach  Bishop  White 
particularly  on  that  subject. 

We  have  only  to  add  here  that  w^hatever  Dr.  Coke 
did  in  this  matter  was  his  own  individual  act ;  and  was 
neither  approved  of  nor  known  by  his  colleague,  Bishop 
Asbury,  nor,  as  far  as  we  are  acquainted,  by  a  single 
other  Methodist  minister  in  the  United  States.  And 
that  Dr.  Coke  himself  lived  long  enough  to  see,  and 
with  his  characteristic  candour,  to  acknowledge  that  the 
failure  of  his  scheme  had  been  for  the  best.'^ 


*  That  Dr.  Coke  was  ardent  in  his  temperament,  and  sometimes  hasty  and 
precipitate  in  his  measures,  his  best  friends  will  admit.  But  his  candour, 
when  convinced  of  an  error,  was  a  trait  in  his  character  not  less  predominantly 
striking. — At  some  periods  of  his  life  there  is  no  question  that  he  would  have 
been  willing  to  make  even  undue  sacnficcs  for  the  sake  of  accomplishing  a 
union  between  the  body  of  Methodists  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church ; 
and  also  with  the  Church  of  England.     In  addition  to  the  prejudices  of  hi* 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  53 

A  statement  on  this  subject,  similar  to  that  of  Mr. 
M'Caine,  was  made  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wyatt,  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church,  in  a  sermon  published  by 
that  gentleman,  in  Baltimore,  in  the  year  1820.  From 
the  correspondence  of  their  materials,  it  seems  pretty 
evident  that  they  both  drew  from  the  same  fountain; 
which,  however,  they  seem  to  have  been  equally 
ashamed  to  own.  That  Dr.  Wyatt  drew  from  it,  we 
think  there  can  be  little  doubt :  for  he  adds  to  the  story 
a  remarkable  fabrication  of  his  author,  which  we  believe 
never  before  appeared  any  where  else ;  and  which  it 
might  have  been  well  for  Dr.  Wyatt  to  have  given  that 
author  credit  for ;  since,  in  not  doing  so,  he  has  taken 
upon  himself  the  responsibility  of  asserting  as  a  fact 
what  we  peremptorily  deny  to  be  such. 

The  author  to  whom  we  allude  asserts  that  Dr.  Coke's 
proposal  to  Bishop  White  was  made  "  with  the  sanction, 
if  not  actualhj  hy  the  order,  of  Mr.  Wesleij.'"  Dr.  Wyatt 
merely  varies  the  phraseology  a  little,  and  asserts  it 
was  ''with  the  approbation,  if  not  direction,  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley.'' In  either  shape  we  demj  the  statement,  and 
demand  the  proof  The  fact  is  that  Mr.  Wesley  at  that 
time  was  dead.  And  if  the  communication  to  Bishop 
White  had  been  made  by  Dr.  Coke  with  his  approba- 
tion, and  much  more  if  by  his  direction,  there  can  be 


education,  as  a  clergyman  o(  the  Church  of  England,  it  is  highly  probable, 
too,  that,  at  the  time  of  writing  to  Bishop  White,  neither  his  mind,  nor  per- 
haps, as  he  supposed.  Mr.  Wesley's,  had  entirely  recovered  from  the  influence 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  Conference  of  1787,  in  relation  to  the  appointment 
of  Mr.  Whatpoat,  and  the  leaving  of  Mr.  Wesley's  name  off  the  Minutes. 
This  state  of  things,  according  to  Dr.  Coke's  views,  may  serve  to  account  for 
several  expressions  in  his  letter  to  Bishop  White,  both  in  relation  to  Mr.  Wesley 
and  to  Bishop  Asbury.  The  transactions  of  that  period  of  our  history  we 
shall  presently  explain  more  fully.  It  is  sufficient  to  add  here  that  whatever 
unfavourable  impressions  respecting  Mr.  Asbury  had  been  produced  abroad, 
previously  to  that  time,  he  outlived  them  all.  The  affectionate  assurances  of 
confidence  and  union  which  passed  between  Dr.  Coke  and  him,  at  the  General 
Conference  of  1796,  are  well  remembered  by  several  now  living,  who  were 
then  present.  And  Dr.  Coke's  letter  to  him,  of  Feb.  1808,  quoted  above, 
^undantly  attests  the  same  fact. 


54  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

no  doubt,  from  the  open  manner  in  which  Dr.  Coke 
unbosomed  himself  to  Bishop  White,  and  from  the  use 
which  he  did  make  of  Mr.  Wesley's  name,  that  he  would 
not  have  failed  to  mention  so  very  important  a  circum- 
stance, nor  Bishop  White  to  communicate  it.  In  fact, 
justice,  in  this  case,  would  have  required  it  in  Dr.  Coke's 
defence.  And  we  respectfully  submit  it  to  the  Rev. 
Professor  of  Theology  in  the  University  of  Maryland, 
whether  attempts  in  this  way  to  wound  so  large  and 
respectable  a  body  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
on  such  authority,  be  not  more  disparaging  to  his  own 
sacred  and  elevated  character  than  to  them. 

In  one  colouring  of  the  matter,  however,  neither  Mr. 
M'Caine  nor  Dr.  Wyatt  seems  to  have  had  the  hardi- 
hood to  follow  up  his  author.  That  author  says  :■  "  It 
was  a  society  applying  for  readmission  into  the  church, 
and  not  two  equally  independent  bodies  that  were  to  be 
considered  as  negotiating." — "  The  society  could  and  did 
acknowledge  the  church  she  applied  to,"  &c.  Now,  as 
it  respects  any  application  on  this  subject  from  the 
society,  as  he  here  calls  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
all  this  is  wholly  false.  Though,  in  our  opinion,  there 
is  just  as  much  truth  in  it  as  in  the  assertion  of  the  same 
author  that  Dr.  Coke's  proposal  was  made  with  the 
sanction,  if  not  by  the  order,  of  Mr.  Wesley. — And  this 
tale,  we  apprehend,  will  gain  but  little  additional  credit 
when  it  is  known  that  it  originated  with  one  who  had 
deserted  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  joined 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  ;  and  after  pronouncing 
upon  that  church  the  most  fulsome  and  high-toned  eulo- 
gies, subsequently  abandoned  it  also,  and  went  where 
all  who  hold  such  principles  as  he  had  avowed,  to  be 
consistent  with  themselves,  ought  to  go — to  the  Papists. 
And  thence,  no  doubt,  looked  down  on  Dr.  Wyatt,  and 
the  whole  "  schismaticaV  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
with  as  much  contempt  as  he  had  before  arrogated  to 
himself  the  right  to  bestow,  with  so  much  bitter  haughti- 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  55 

ness,  upon  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  We  mean 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Kewley.  And  this  gentleman  is  one  of 
the  "  writers"  passed  off  on  his  readers  by  Mr.  M'Caine, 
among-  his  ecclesiastical  writers  of  "  great  celehritij  .'""^ 

Dr.  Wjatt  asserts,  farther,  that  "  it  has  been  the  faith 
of  the  universal  church,  without  exception,  until  the  period 
of  the  reformation,  that  to  the  order  of  bishops  alone 
belongs  the  power  of  ordaining  ministers :  and  that  an 
ordination  performed  by  the  hands  of  a  priest,  deacon, 
or  layman,  or  by  any  number  of  either,  would  be  devoid 
of  every  degree  of  validity  and  efficacy,  in  conferring 
spiritual  office  and  power."  By  bishops  in  this  passage 
we  understand  Dr.  Wyatt  to  mean  diocesan  bishops,  in 
the  high-church  sense.  And  as  he  thought  proper  to 
apply  his  remarks  to  the  "  Methodist  denomination"  by 
name,  whom  he  acknowledges  to  be  "  zealous  and  de- 
vout," whilst  he  excludes  our  whole  order  from  any 
part  or  lot  in  the  Christian  ministry,  he  will  excuse  us 
for  saying  a  few  words  in  self-defence.  Acjitiir  de  vita 
et  sanguine  Tumi. 

Dr.  Wyatt  has  not  even  excepted  the  "  exigence  of 
necessity,"  which  even  Hooker  says  may  "  constrain  to 
leave  the  usual  ways  of  the  church."  The  same  Mr. 
Hooker  adds,  "  Wher«  the  church  must  needs  have 
some  ordained,  and  neither  hath  nor  can  have  possibly 
a  bishop  to  ordain ;  in  case  of  such  necessity,  the  ordi- 
nary institution  hath  given  oftentimes,  and  may  give, 

*  Dr.  Bowden,  another  high-church  \%T:iter,  in  his  letters  to  Dr.  Miller, 
aflBrms  that  John  Wesley  was  evidently  persuaded  by  Coke,  and  two  or  three 
others,  to  take  the  step  of  ordaining  bishops  for  America  ;  and  that  it  did  not 
originate  with  himself.  This  will  be  sufficiently  refuted  in  our  section  of 
"Testimonies  of  English  Methodists."  Dr.  Bowden  asserts  also  that  Coke 
offered  to  Bishop  White  "  to  give  up  their  spurious  episcopacy,"  and  insinuates 
that  John  Wesley  acted  "  absolutely  in  contradiction  to  his  own  conviction." 
Dr.  Bowden,  however,  wrote  evidently  in  too  great  wrath  to  treat  even  the 
names  of  John  Wesley  and  of  Coke  with  common  decency.  Nor  will  the 
reader  be  surprised  at  his  saying  any  thing  that  suited  the  purpose  of  abusing 
the  Methodists,  when  informed  that  he  copied  Mr.  Kewley,  whose  authority 
he  had  the  prudence  to  cite. — Mr.  Kewley  adopted  the  maxim,  "  Throw  dirt 
^nough  and  some  will  stick ;"  and  Dr.  Bowden  followed  his  example. 


56  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

place.  And  therefore,  we  are  not  simply  without  excep- 
tion, to  urge  a  lineal  descent  of  power  from  the  apostles 
by  continued  succession  of  bishops,  in  every  effectual 
ordination.     Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  vii,  sect.  14. 

The  authority  of  Mr.  Hooker  has  always  been  ranked 
in  the  first  class  by  high  churchmen  themselves ;  and 
Dr.  White,  as  we  have  before  shown,  asserted  that  the 
necessity  of  the  churches  in  this  country,  about  the  close 
of  the  revolutionary  war,  was  even  greater  than  the  exi- 
gence of  those  foreign  churches  to  which  Hooker  alluded. 

In  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  about  the  year  1547,  a 
very  grave  and  learned  assembly  of  select  divines  was 
called  by  the  king's  special  order,  for  debating  the  set- 
tlement of  things  according  to  the  word  of  God,  and  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  church.  It  consisted  of  Oan- 
mer,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  archbishop  of  York, 
and  many  other  prelates  and  divines  of  the  first  distinc- 
tion. The  account  of  their  proceedings  Dr.  Stillingfleet 
assures  us  he  took  himself  from  the  authentic  manu- 
script of  Archbishop  Cranmer,  then  first  published.  To 
the  questions  propounded  to  the  assembly  by  order  of 
the  king,  those  eminent  divines  gave  in  their  answers 
severally,  on  paper ;  which  were  all  accurately  summed 
up  and  set  down  by  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  him- 
self The  following  were  some  of  the  questions  and 
answers. 

Quest.  10.  "Whether  bishops  or  priests  were  first ;  and 
if  the  priest  were  first,  then  the  priest  made  the  bishop  ?" 

Ans.  "  The  bishops  and  priests  were  at  one  time,  and 
were  not  two  things,  but  both  one  office  in  the  begin- 
ning of  Christ's  religion." 

Quest.  13.  "  Whether  (if  it  fortuned  a  prince  Chris- 
tien,  lemed,  to  conquer  certen  domynyons  of  infidells, 
having  none  but  the  temporal  lemed  men  with  him)  it 
be  defended  by  God's  law,  that  he  and  they  should 
preche  and  teche  the  word  of  God  there  or  no, .and  also 
make  and  constitute  priests  or  no  ?" 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  57 

Ans.  "  It  is  not  against  God's  law,  but  contrary  they 
ought  indede  so  to  do,  and  there  he  history es  that  witnesseth 
that  some  Christien  princes  and  other  laymen  unconse- 
crate  have  done  the  same." — Observe,  "  there  he  histories 
that  witness" — certainly  before  "  the  reformation,"  which 
was  then  but  just  begun. 

Quest.  14.  "  Whether  it  be  forfended  by  God's  law, 
that  if  it  so  fortuned  that  all  the  bishopps  and  priests 
were  dedde,  and  that  the  word  of  God  shuld  there  un- 
preached,  the  sacrament  of  baptisme  and  others  unmi- 
nistred,  the  king  of  that  region  shulde  make  bishoppes 
and  priests  to  supply  the  same  or  no  ? " 

Ans.  "  It  is  not  forbidden  by  God's  law."^ 

Iren.  pp.  386-393. 

"If  we  may  believe  the  great  antiquaries  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  that  church  was  governed  by  their 
culdei,  as  they  called  their  presbyters,  without  any  bishop 
over  them,  for  a  long  time. — Johannes  Fordoniis  (De 
gestis  Scot.  lib.  ii,  ch.  2,)  is  clear  and  full  as  to  their 
government  from  the  time  of  their  conversion  about 
A.  D.  263,  to  the  coming  of  Palladius,  A.  D.  430,  that 
they  were  only  governed  by  presbyters  and  monks. 
Ante  Palladii  adventum  habebant  Scoti  fidei  doctores 
ac  sacramentorum  ministratores  preshyteros  solummodo, 
vel  monachos  ritum  sequentes  Ecclesite  primitivse." 
Ibid.  p.  375. 

"  It  is  no  w^ay  sufficient,"  says  Stillingfleet,  "  to  say 
that  these  presbyters  did  derive  their  authority  from 
some  bishops — if  they  had  any  they  were  only  chosen 
from   their   culdei,''  (as   they  called  their  presbyters,) 

*  Of  Archbishop  Cranmer,  Dr.  Warner,  as  cited  with  approbation  by  Bishop 
White,  says,  "  His  equal  was  never  yet  seen  in  the  see  of  Canterbury,  and  I 
will  take  upon  me  to  say  that  his  superior  never  will." — The  two  last  questions 
and  answers  above  are  cited  by  Bishop  White  also,  who  adds  respecting-  them, 
"  The  above  may  be  offered  as  the  opinions  of  not  only  Cranmer,  but  also  of 
most  of  the  eminent  bishops  and  other  clergy  of  that  period."  Episcopal 
Churches  Considered,  p.  28. 


58  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

"  much  after  the  custom  of  the  church  at  Alexandria, 
as  Hector  Boethius  cloth  imply.  And  if  we  believe 
Philostorgius,  the  Gothic  churches  were  planted  and 
governed  by  presbyters  for  above  seventy  years  ;  for  so 
long  it  was  from  their  first  conversion  to  the  time  of 
Ulphhilas,  w^hom  he  makes  their  first  bishop."    Ibid. 

For  another  instance,  about  the  year  390,  see  Ireni- 
cum,  p.  379, — and  others  in  the  year  452,  after  stating 
and  arguing  which,  Dr.  Stillingfleet  tlius  concludes : — "  It 
appears  then  that  this  power"  [of  ordination  by  pres- 
byters] "  was  restrained  by  the  laws  of  the  church,  for 
preserving  unity  in  itself;  but  yet  so  that  in  case  of 
necessity  what  was  done  by  presbyters  was  not  looked 
on  as  invalid."  Ibid.  p.  381. 

We  have  already  referred  to  the  practice  of  the 
church  in  Alexandria  in  making  their  bishops,  for  more 
than  two  hundred  years.  The  mode  in  which  some 
high-church  writers  attempt  to  explain  Jerome's  account 
of  that  matter  we  are  not  unapprized  of.  It  would  be 
easy  to  show  that  their  explanation  by  no  means  deprives 
us,  in  this  case,  of  the  authority  even  of  Jerome :  and 
those  learned  doctors,  to  use  the  language  of  Stilling- 
fleet, who  would  persuade  us  that  the  presbyters  did 
only  make  choice  of  the  person,  but  the  ordination  was 
performed  by  other  bishops,  would  do  well  first  to  tell 
us  who  and  where  those  bishops  were, — especially  while 
Egypt  remained  but  one  province  under  the  Praefectus 
Augustalis.  But  in  proof  of  the  correctness  of  our  un- 
derstanding of  the  case,  we  adduce  the  testimony  of  the 
patriarch  of  Alexandria  himself,  w^ho  expressly  affirms, 
as  we  have  before  quoted,  "  That  the  twelve  presbyters 
constituted  by  Mark,  upon  the  vacancy  of  the  see,  did 
choose  out  of  their  number  one  to  be  head  over  the  rest, 
and  the  other  eleven  did  lay  their  hands  upo7i  him  and 
blessed  him,  and  made  him  patriarch.''''  The  patriarch, 
or  bishop  of  Alexandria,  who  states  this,  was  Eutychius, 
whose  annals,  with  several  other  productions    of  his 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  59 

learned  pen,  are  still  extant,  and  whom  Mosheim  men- 
tions as  the  chief  example  of  those  Egyptian  writers  of 
the  tenth  century,  "  who  in  genius  and  learning  were 
nowise  inferior  to  the  most  eminent  of  the  Grecian 
literati."  Mosh.,  vol.  ii,  383,  404. 

Stillingfleet  understood  this  case  as  published  by  the 
most  learned  Selden,  precisely  in  the  same  sense  ;  and 
it  is  evident  that  Archbishop  Usher  did  also ;  for  when 
he  says  King  Charles  the  First  asked  him  at  the  Isle 
of  Wight,  whether  he  found  in  antiquity  that  presbyters 
alone  ordained  any,  he  replied,  Yes  ;  and  that  he  could 
show  his  majesty  more,  even  where  presbyters  alone 
successively  ordained  bishops,  and  brought,  as  an  instance 
of  this,  the  presbyters  of  Alexandria  choosing  and 
making  their  own  bishops,  from  the  days  of  Mark  till 
Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  a  space  of  more  than  200 
years. 

But  after  all  that  Dr.  Wyatt  has  said,  it  is  not  a  httle 
remarkable  that  he  recognises  the  Lutheran  Church 
of  Sweden  as  a  regular  and  valid  episcopal  church ; 
although,  if  Dr.  Miller  be  correct,  it  is  notorious  that  the 
first  ministers  who  undertook  to  ordain  in  Sweden,  after 
the  introduction  of  the  Reformation,  were  only  presby- 
ters; and  the  Lutheran  church  does  not  scruple  to 
admit  the  ordination  even  of  bishops  by  presbyters,  and 
indisputably  disclaims  any  pretence  of  an  apostolical 
and  "  divinely  protected  succession"  of  bishops,  for  the 
validity  of  episcopacy. 

The  burden  of  proof  in  this  matter  was  not  properly 
incumbent  on  us ;  yet  we  have  now  adduced  cases  suffi- 
cient to  form  at  least  some  exceptions  to  Dr.  Wyatt's 
sweeping  universal  affirmative.  When  he  shall  have 
satisfactorily  disoosed  of  these,  we  may  perhaps  produce 
more.  . 


60  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 


Section  Yll.—The  Praijer  Book  o/1784. 

Mr.  M'Caine  says,  "  The  distinction  between  bishops 
and  presbyters  being  the  foundation  of  the  episcopal 
form  of  government,  and  this  distinction  having  no 
existence  in  fact,  nor  in  Mr.  Wesley's  creed,  our  epis- 
copal superstructure  falls  to  the  ground,"  p.  19.  Now 
we  have  abundantly  proved,  according  to  ecclesiastical 
writers  of  the  most  distinguished  celebrity,  that  an  epis- 
copal form  of  government  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
the  admission  that  bishops  and  presbyters  were  prima- 
marily  and  inherently  the  same  order.  And  we  have 
especially  proved  that  this  was  Mr.  Wesley's  view  in 
particular.  It  was  ten  years  after  he  was  convinced 
that  bishops  and  presbyters  were  the  same  order,  that 
he  declared  that  he  still  believed  the  episcopal  form  of 
church  government  to  be  Scriptural  and  apostolical ; 
that  is,  w^ell  agreeing  with  the  practice  and  writings  of 
the  apostles.  So  far  as  this  argument  is  concerned, 
therefore,  our  "  episcopal  superstructure"  may  still  stand. 

In  another  place,  p.  14,  Mr.  M'Caine  says,  "  It  is 
upon  the  prayer  hook  our  episcopal  mode  of  government 
is  made  to  rest,  and  this  is  the  only  authority  which  is 
attempted  to  be  produced  for  it."  Were  we  disposed  to 
adopt  Mr.  M'Caine's  language,  and  to  give  our  remarks 
a  "  serious  moral  bearing,"  we  might  ask,  Is  this  truth  ? 

"But  although  it  is  very  far  from  being  true  that  the 
prayer  book  is  the  only  authority  which  is  at  least 
attempted  to  be  produced  for  our  episcopal  mode  of 
government,  yet,  so  far  as  Mr.  Wesley's  recommend- 
ation is  concerned,  we  shall  probably  make  a  little 
more  out  of  the  prayer  book  than  the  silly  witness 
"  brought  into  court"  by  Mr.  M'Caine,  who  was  careful 
both  to  choose  his  witness,  and  to  put  such-  answers 
into  his  mouth  as  were  to  his  own  purpose.     Such  a 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  61 

process  a  good  cause  cannot  need.  A  bad  one  it  might 
serve. 

Dr.  Coke's  letters  of  ordination  as  a  superintendent 
were  dated  Sept.  2,  1784.  Mr.  Wesley's  preface  to  the 
first  edition  of  his  abridgment  of  the  prayer  book  was 
dated  Sept.  9,  1784,  and  his  letter  ''  to  Dr.  Coke,  Mr. 
Asbury,  and  our  brethren  in  North  America,"  bore  date 
Sept.  10,  of  the  same  year.  These  documents,  there- 
fore, so  nearly  synchronous,  are  to  be  regarded,  with 
the  prayer  book,  as  parts  of  one  whole  ;  and  as  consti- 
tuting together  the  "  little  sketch"  which  Mr.  Wesley 
says  he  had  drawn  up  hi  comphance  with  the  desire  of 
some  thousands  of  the  inhabitants  of  these  States.  This 
"  sketch"  had  direct  reference  to  the  "  ecclesiastical 
authority"  to  be  exercised  among  "  our  brethren  in 
North  America ;"  where,  as  he  says  in  the  sentence 
immediately  preceding,  no  one  then  "  either  exercised 
or  claimed  any  ecclesiastical  authority  at  all." 

Mr.  M'Caine  admits  that  the  prayer  book  of  1784, 
entitled  "  The  Sunday  service  of  the  Methodists  in 
North  America,  with  other  occasional  services,''  was 
printed  at  Mr.  Wesley's  own  press,  and  sent  to  us  by 
the  hands  of  Dr.  Coke.  We  ask,  then,  was  not  the 
abridging,  and  printing,  and  sending  this  book  to  us  a 
"  recommendation,"  even  if  it  had  contained  no  preface, 
and  the  term  "  recommend"  had  never  been  used  ?  And 
was  it  not  a  recommendation  of  those  "  other  occasional 
services"  as  well  as  " the  Sunday  service ?'  And  for 
what  were  those  other  occasional  services  sent  to  us,  if 
not  to  be  used  as  a  pattern  in  the  orderijiy  of  our  minis- 
try? To  be  able  to  answer  these  questions  satisfac- 
torily, it  will  be  necessary  to  observe  carefully  what 
those  "  other  occasional  services"  were.  It  is  not 
necessary  here  to  name  those  for  baptism,  matrimony, 
the  burial  of  the  dead,  &c.  The  following  are  sufficient 
for  our  purpose.  At  page  280  we  find  the  forms  for 
ordaining  our  ministers  thus  headed :  "  The  form  and 


62  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

manner  of  making  and  ordaining  of  superintendents, 
ELDERS,  and  deacons." 

The  first  office  following  is  entitled,  "  The  form  and 
manner  of  making  of  deacons."  And  the  running  title 
at  the  head  of  the  page  is,  "  The  ordainifig  of  deacons" 

The  second  office  is,  "  The  form  and  manner  of  or- 
daining of  ELDERS."  The  running  title  is,  "  The  ordain- 
ing of  elders. ^^ 

The  third  is,  "  The  form  of  ordaining  of  a  superin- 
tendent." The  running  title  is,  "  The  ordination  of 
swperintendentsr 

On  these  facts  we  remark  : — 1.  It  is  a  fair  presump- 
tion that  when  Messrs.  Whatcoat  and  Vasey  were  set 
apart  as  elders,  and  Dr.  Coke  as  a  superintendent,  the 
same  forms  were  used  by  Mr.  Wesley  himself  which  he 
abridged  for  us. 

2.  He  himself  expressly  calls  these  acts  "  ordaining," 
and  "  ordination."  The  reader  will  notice  that  Mr. 
"Wesley  undeniably  intended  that  our  setting  apart 
superintendents  in  America  should  be  called  "  ordaining" 
superintendents ;  and  "  the  ordination  of  superintend- 
ents." Yet  when  Dr.  Coke  was  solemnly  set  apart  by 
him,  assisted  by  three  other  presbyters,  Mr.  M'Caine 
thinks  we  ought  not  to  call  it  an  ordination,  and  that 
Mr.  Wesley  meant  no  such  thing ! 

3.  If  the  setting  apart  of  superintendents,  as  such, 
was  not  intended  by  Mr.  Wesley  to  establish  the  ordi- 
nation of  such  an  order  of  ministers  among  us,  neither 
was  the  setting  apart  of  deacons  and  elders  intended  to 
establish  those  orders.  Similar  forms  and  solemnities 
were  recommended  for  the  former  as  for  the  latter.  In 
this  case,  if  Mr.  M'Caine's  arguments  be  conclusive,  it 
follows  as  clearly  that  Mr.  M'Caine's  eldership  has  been 
"  saddled"  upon  the  people  contrary  to  Mr.  Wesley's 
intention,  as  that  our  episcopacy  has  been.  We  assert 
with  confidence  that  any  intelligent,  candid,  and  impar- 
tial man,  who  shall  examine  this  prayer  book,  will  say, 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  63 

either  that  Mr.  Wesley  intended  to  estabhsh  the  ordi- 
nation of  an  order  of  superintendents,  to  act  as  bishops 
in  fact,  though  with  the  title  of  superintendents ;  or, 
that  he  did  not  intend  to  establish  the  ordination  of  any 
orders  of  ministers  at  all ;  and  that  "  our  fathers"  utterly 
mistook  "the  whole  affair."^ 

4.  The  preceding  remark  is  confirmed  by  this  fact. 
The  forms  recommended  to  us  by  Mr.  Wesley  for  "  or- 
daining of  superintendents,  elders,  and  deacons,"  are  pre- 
cisely similar  to  those  used  by  the  Church  of  England, 
and  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country, 
for  ordaining  of  "  bishojys,  priests,  and  deacons."  The 
only  difference  is,  that  Mr.  Wesley  somewhat  abridged 
the  forms,  with  a  few  verbal  alterations,  and  substituted 
the  title  "  superintendent"  for  "  bishop,"  just  as  he  did 
that  of  "elder"  for  "priest."  So  that  it  is  plain,  if  by 
"  superintendent"  he  did  not  mean  that  order  of  minis- 
ters denominated  by  those  churches  "  bishops,"  neither 
by  "  elder"  did  he  mean  that  order  of  ministers  deno- 
minated by  those  churches  "  priests." 

5.  In  wdiatever  sense  distinct  ordinations  constitute 
distinct  orders,  in  the  same  sense  Mr.  Wesley  certainly 
intended  that  we  should  have  three  orders.  For  he 
undeniably  instituted  three  distinct  ordinations.  All  the 
forms  and  solemnities  requisite  for  the  constituting  of 
any  one  order,  in  this  sense,  were  equally  prepared  and 
recommended  by  him  to  us  for  the  constituting  of  three 
orders.  The  term  "  ordain''  is  derived  from  the  Latin 
ordino,  to  order,  to  create  or  commission  one  to  be  a 

*  Mr.  M'Caine's  proceeding  reminds  us  of  the  old  Greek  apologue  of  the 
eagle,  which  we  will  give  in  an  ancient  English  version. 

"  The  eagle  saw  her  breast  was  wounded  sore  : 
See  stood,  and  weeped  much,  but  grieved  more. 
But  when  she  saw  the  dart  w^s  feathered,  said, 
Wo 's  me  !  for  my  own  kind  hath  me  destroy'd." 

But  had  the  eagle  known  that  it  was  not  only  her  own  "  kind,"  but  her  own 

otFspring,  who  for  the  sake  of  winging  a  dart  to  wound  his  parent,  had  actually 

^  plucked  himself  to  death,  she  would  doubtless  have  weeped  and  grieved  more. 


64  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

public  officer. — And  this  from  ordo,  order.  And  hence 
persons  ordained  are  said  to  be  persons  in  "  holy,  orders." 
And  the  degree  of  ordination  stated  in  the  "commis- 
sion," or  letters  of  ordination,  shows  the  degree  of  the 
orders.  At  the  same  time  we  maintain  that  a  third 
degree  of  ordination  is  perfectly  compatible  with  the 
doctrine  of  two  orders,  if  the  term  "  order"  be  used  as 
implying  divi7ie  right.  This  Mr.  M'Caine  admits.  And 
it  will  appear  still  more  clearly  if  we  consider  the  nature 
and  origin  of  ordination,  as  above  stated.  Lord  King 
maintains  that  bishops  and  presbyters,  in  the  primitive 
church,  were  the  same  order.  Yet  he  expressly  says 
that  the  bishops,  wdien  chosen  such  from  among  the 
presbyters,  were  ordained,  as  bishops,  by  imposition  of 
hands.  Constitution  and  Discipline  of  the  Primitive 
Church,  p.  49.  In  this  respect,  both  Mr.  Wesley's  usage 
and  ours  exactly  correspond  with  that  of  the  primitive 
church,  according  to  Lord  King,  even  on  the  principle 
of  two  orders. 

6.  The  extension  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishop,  in 
consequence  of  the  extension  of  the  church,  is  not  the 
creating  of  any  new  office,  as  we  have  shown  from 
Stillingfieet,  and  certainly  cannot  make  it  less  proper 
that  he  should  be  solemnly  ordained  by  imposition  of 
hands,  and  furnished  with  suitable  credentials.  The 
revival  of  such  an  itinerant,  extensive  personal  over- 
sight and  inspection  is  the  revival  of  the  apostolic  prac- 
tice, and,  as  Mr.  Wesley  says,  well  agrees  both  with 
their  practice  and  with  their  writings. 

7.  The  idea  that  equals  cannot  from  among  them- 
selves constitute  an  officer,  who,  as  an  officer,  shall  be 
superior  to  any  of  those  by  whom  he  w^as  constituted, 
is  contradicted  by  all  experience  and  history,  both  civil 
and  ecclesiastical ;  and  equally  so  by  common  sense. 
The  contrary  is  too  plain  to  require  illustration.  It 
should  be  remembered,  too,  that  Dr.  Coke  was  ordained 
a  superintendent,  not  by  Mr.  Wesley  only,  but  by  four 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  65 

presbyters ; — two  of  them  indisputably  acknowledged 
as  such  by  the  whole  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church;  and  all  of  them 
by  us,  and  by  all  others,  both  in  those  and  in  other 
churches,  who  admit  the  vahdity  of  ordination  by  pres- 
byters in  such  an  exigency  as  that  in  which  Mr.  What- 
coat  and  Mr.  Vasey  were  ordained  such. — It  is  to  be 
remembered  also  that  Dr.  Coke  was  afterward  authori- 
tatively and  unanimously  received  in  this  office,  by  the 
body  of  preachers  over  whom  he  was  to  preside  ;  and 
that  all  these  acts,  in  the  peculiar  circumstances  in 
which  Mr.  Wesley's  advice  and  help  were  asked,  are  to 
be  taken  together,  as  investing  Dr.  Coke  with  his  "  epis- 
copal authority"  am.ong  us.  A  similar  statement  might 
be  made  with  respect  to  Mr.  Asbury,  only  substituting 
his  unanimous  election  for  unanimous  reception.  These 
church  officers,  after  they  were  thus  constituted  and 
commissioned  were  superior,  as  our  officers,  in  the  actual 
exercise  of  certain  executive  powers  among  us,  to  any 
individual  of  those  by  whom  they  were  constituted. — 
Even  Mr.  Wesley  could  not  actually  station  the  preach- 
ers in  America,  after  we  had  superintendents  of  our 
own,  agreeably  to  his  own  advice  ;  yet  Dr.  Coke  and 
Mr.  Asbury  could.  We  shall  hereafter  prove  that  Mr, 
Wesley  did  not  reserve  to  himself  even  the  appoint- 
ment of  our  superintendents  ;  and  that  neither  did  the 
General  Conference  of  1784  so  understand  him;  nor 
was  he,  in  consequence  of  any  act  of  theirs,  thereafter 
to  exercise  this  power. 

We  turn  now  to  the  preface  of  this  prayer  book. 

This  preface  is  signed  "  John  Wesley,"  and  dated, 
"Bristol,  Sept.  9,  1784," — only  seven  days  after  the  or- 
dination of  Dr.  Coke ;  and  was  plainly  intended  as  a 
preface  to  the  rvliole  hook.  In  the  first  paragraph  Mr. 
Wesley  speaks  in  high  terms  of  the  ''Liturgy''  or 
"  Common  Prayer  of  the  Church  of  England."  He  then 
states  that  he  had  made  "  little  alteration"  in  this  edition 
#  5 


66  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

of  it,  except  omitting  most  of  the  hohj  days  so  called ; 
shortening  the  service  of  the  Lord^s  day;  omitting  some 
sentences  in  the  offices  of  baptism,  and  for  the  burial  of 
the  dead  ;  and  leaving  out  many  of  the  psalms,  and  parts 
of  others.  The  enumeration  of  these  particulars  proves 
that  by  his  edition  of  the  "  Liturgy"  or  "  Common 
Prayer,"  he  meant  the  whole  book,  with  all  the  offices 
and  forms  contained  in  it,  as  well  as  the  Sunday  service 
and  psalms.  With  this  evident  meaning,  he  says,  *'  The 
following  edition  of  it  I  recommend  to  our  societies  in 
America."  Now  this  edition  contained  a  form  for  "  the 
ordination  of  superintendents'^  among  us,  in  the  same 
manner  as  bishops  are  ordained  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land ;  with  the  same  solemnities,  and  for  the  same  pur- 
poses;  viz.,  to  preside  over  the  flock  of  Christ,  including 
the presbijters  and  deacons;  and  to  ordain  others.  Now 
does  it  comport  with  good  sense  to  say,  that  Mr.  Wesley 
recommended  the  fo7'm,  but  not  the  thing  which  that 
form  imports  ?  And  will  any  intelligent  man  pronounce 
that  that  thing  is  not  an  episcopal  order  of  ministers,  and 
an  episcopacy  in  fact,  by  whatever  names  they  may 
have  been  called  ?  This  point  is  so  plain  that  we  are 
really  ashamed  to  dwell  on  it. 

That  we  are  not  mistaken  in  the  comprehensive  im- 
port of  the  terms  "  Liturgy,"  and  "  Common  Prayer," 
as  above  asserted,  will  appear  from  the  following  lan- 
guage of  the  convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  by  which  the  liturgy  of  that  church  was  rati- 
fied, on  the  16th  of  October,  in  the  year  1789  ;  and  also 
from  the  language  of  Bishops  White  and  Brownell. 

"  This  convention,  having  in  this  present  session  set 

forth  '  A  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER  AND  ADMINISTRATION 
OF  THE  SACRAMENTS  AND  OTHER  RITES  AND  CEREMO- 
NIES OF  THE  CHURCH,' do  hereby  establish  said  book: 
and  they  declare  it  to  be  the  liturgy  of  this  church ; 
and  require  that  it  be  received  as  such  by  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  same." 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  67 

*^The  principal  act  of  this  session,"  says  Bishop 
White,  in  his  Memoirs  of  the  Church,  "  was  the  pre- 
paring of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer^  as  now  the  esta- 
bhshed  Liturgy  of  the  church." 

"At  the  convention  of  1808,"  (says  Bishop  Brownell, 
in  the  introduction  to  the  '  Family  Prayer  Book,  or  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  and  Administration  of  the  Sacra- 
ments, and  other  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the  Church,') 
"thirty  hymns  were  added  to  the  Book  of  j)salms  and 
hymns.  Since  which  time  no  changes  have  been  made 
in  our  Liturgy T  All  which  proves  that  by  "the 
Liturgy,"  is  to  be  understood  the  whole  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer,  with  all  the  forms,  rites,  ceremonies,  orders, 
offices,  and  administrations  therein  set  forth  and  recom- 
mended. 

A  writer  in  another  work  lately  suggested  an  inquiry 
whether  our  articles  of  religion  also  were  not  "surrep- 
titiously" introduced  originally,  and  imposed  on  us  by 
the  bishops.  We  have  not  the  work  at  hand  to  quote 
verbatim,  but  give  the  sentiment  as  we  recollect  it. 

If  our  brother  will  look  into  this  prayer  book  of 
1784,  he  will  find  our  articles  of  religion,  abridged  from 
the  thirty-nine  articles  of  the  Church  of  England  by 
Mr.  Wesley,  printed  and  recommended  by  him  in  this 
book,  and  adopted,  as  Mr.  M'Caine  admits  this  edition 
of  the  prayer  book  was,  by  the  conference  of  1784.  It 
is  true  the  articles  are  not  named  in  the  preface.  But 
will  any  one  contend  that  therefore  Mr.  Wesley  did  not 
mean  to  recommend  them  to  us,  although  they  are  a  part 
of  the  hook  which  he  prepared,  and  printed,  and  sent, 
and  recommended?  Yet  most  certainly  it  would  be 
just  as  rational  to  assert  this,  as  that  he  did  not  mean 
to  recommend  to  us  the  institution  of  an  episcopal  order 
of  ministers,  although  he  did  prepare,  and  print,  and 
send,  and  recommend  to  us  a  solemn  form  for  the  setting 
apart  and  ordaining  of  such  an  order. 

In  this  prayer  book,  however,  but  twenty-four  articles 
# 


68  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

will  be  found ;  whereas  we  now  have  twenty-five.  The 
additional  one,  inserted  by  the  conference  of  1784,  is 
that  now  numbered  the  twenty-third,  "  Of  the  rulers  of 
the  United  States  of  America."  In  the  Sunday  service 
Mr.  Wesley  inserted  the  form  of  "  a  prayer  for  the  su- 
preme rulers  of  these  United  States."  But  it  is  pro- 
bable that  he  did  not  consider  himself  sufficiently  well 
acquainted  with  our  civil  institutions,  at  that  early 
period,  to  frame  an  "  article"  under  this  head  ;  and 
hence  the  addition  of  this  article,  by  the  conference  of 
1784,  in  conformity  with  the  prayer  of  the  Sunday 
service. 

That  no  investigation  of  this  sort,  however  strict,  if 
conducted  with  a  sj^irit  of  candour  and  fairness,  can 
ever  bring  any  stain  on  the  fair  escutcheon  of  our 
fathers,  we  are  well  persuaded.  But  if,  coming  from 
such  sources,  the  challenging  of  such  inquiries  be  con- 
nected with  darkling  insinuations  of  imposition  and 
fraud,  it  cannot  fail  to  furnish  occasion  to  the  ignorant, 
the  disaffected,  the  bigoted,  and  the  malevolent,  who 
seek  occasion  against  the  defenceless  manes  of  our 
venerated  fathers  ;  at  whose  feet,  while  on  earth,  it 
would  have  been  an  honour  to  any  of  us,  their  sons,  to 
sit ;  and  may  yet  be  in  heaven.  On  this  ground,  and 
on  this  only,  the  time,  and  place,  and  manner  of  these 
things,  we  cannot  but  regret. 

The  prayer  book  of  1784  was  brought  to  America 
in  sheets.  In  those  copies  of  it  which  have  come  under 
our  inspection,  the  Mi7iutes  of  the  General  Conference 
of  1784  are  bound  with  it.  The  proper  place  and 
weight  of  those  Minutes,  in  this  argument,  will  be  con- 
sidered in  the  ensuing  section,  in  which  we  shall  dis- 
cuss the  prayer  book  of  1786. 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  69 

Section  Ylll.—The  Prayer  Book  of  1786. 

This  prayer  book  is  entitled,  "  The  Sunday  Service 
of  the  Methodists  in  the  United  States  of  America,  with 
other  Occasional  Services."  It  was  printed  London,  1786, 
at  the  press  of  "  Frys  and  Couchman."  In  this  edition 
we  find  the  twenty-five  articles  of  religion,  including 
that  of  "the  rulers  of  the  United  States  of  America;" 
and  also,  "  The  General  Minutes  of  the  Conferences  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America." — Those 
Minutes  were  first  printed  in  Philadelphia,  by  Charles 
Cist,  in  1785,  and  were  bound  up  with  the  volume  of 
the  prayer  book  which  was  brought  from  England,  in 
sheets,  in  1784.  But  in  the  edition  of  1786  they  are 
regularly  printed  as  a  pari  of  the  book.  It  is  demon- 
strable on  the  face  of  the  book,  that  the  Minutes,  as 
they  appear  in  this  edition,  could  not  have  been  printed 
in  America,  and  the  rest  of  the  book  in  England.  This 
any  printer  will  attest. 

We  have  now  before  us  a  small  volume,  entitled 
"Minutes  of  several  Conversations  between  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Wesley  and  others,  from  the  year  1744  to  the  year 
1789. — London;  printed  by  G.  Paramore,  North  Green, 
Worship-street,  and  sold  by  G.  Whitfield  at  the  Chapel, 
City  Road,  and  at  all  the  Methodist  preaching-houses 
in  town  and  country,  1791."-  By  a  careful  comparison 
of  these  Minutes  with  those  of  the  General  Conference 
of  1784,  it  will  be  found  that  the  latter  are  nearly  a  copy 
of  the  former,  so  far  as  they  had  then  been  drawn  up 
and  published  by  Mr.  Wesley ;  with  some  occasional 
alterations  adapted  to  our  circumstances  in  this  country ; 
together  with  the  insertion  of  some  few  original  minutes. 
There  is  plain  internal  evidence  in  the  two  publications, 
that  the  Minutes  previously  prepared  by  Mr.  Wesley 
were  made  the  basis  of  those  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1784,  and  that  the  latter  were  drawn  up  from 


70  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

the  former,  with  such  aUerations,  abridgments,  modifica- 
tions, or  additions,  as  that  conference  thought  neces- 
sary. And  such,  we  are  informed,  was  the  fact.  These 
Minutes,  thus  prepared  from  Mr.  Wesley's,  were  the 
groundwork  of  our  "  Form  of  Disciphne." 

The  General  Conference  of  1784  commenced  its  ses- 
sion on  the  24th  of  December;  and  closed  on  the  1st  of 
January,  1785.  On  the  3d  of  January  Dr.  Coke  left 
Baltimore.  From  the  8th  to  the  19th  he  was  in  Phila- 
delphia, and  there  published  the  Minutes  of  that  confer- 
ence, the  title  of  which  was,  "  The  General  Minutes  of 
the  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
America."  And  in  the  answer  to  the  third  question,  it 
was  declared  that  they  had  formed  themselves  into  an 
"  episcopal  church."  See  Dr.  Coke's  Journal  of  the 
above  dates,  and  January  22,  1785.  On  the  2d  of  June 
following.  Dr.  Coke  sailed  from  Baltimore  for  England, 
and  was  present  at  the  ensuing  British  Conference, 
which  commenced  in  London  on  the  26th  of  July  of 
that  year.  His  name  is  signed  first  to  an  instrument 
which  was  drawn  up  at  that  conference,  and  which  bears 
date  July  30,  1785,  and  may  be  seen  in  the  British 
Minutes  of  that  year.  Mr.  Wesley  was  also  present  at 
that  conference. — Now  let  the  reader  put  all  these  facts 
together,  and  then  candidly  consider  the  following 
questions  : — 

1.  If  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.*  Asbury  were  conscious  that 
they  had  been  guilty  of  duplicity,  imposition,  and  fraud, 
or  of  violating  Mr.  Wesley's  instructions,  in  the  organi- 
zation of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  is  it  probable 
that  they  would  immediately  after  have  printed  and 
published  these  Minutes  with  this  title,  and  with  an  ex- 
plicit statement  of  what  had  been  done,  and  thus  have 
exposed  their  acts  in  the  face  of  Mr.  Wesley,  and  of 
the  world  ?  Is  it  probable  that  Dr.  Coke,  particularly, 
who  had  the  Minutes  printed,  would  have  done  this, 
knowing  that  he  was  so  soon  to  return  to  England  1 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  71 

2.  Is  it  not  rationally  presumable  that  a  copy  of  these 
Minutes  had  reached  Mr.  Wesley,  in  the  interval  be- 
tween their  publication  in  the  middle  of  January  and 
the  last  of  July  of  that  year,  before  the  close  of  the 
British  conference  ? 

3.  Is  it  not  at  least  certain  that  Mr.  Wesley  must 
have  felt  sufficient  interest  in  this  matter,  to  have  re- 
quired from  Dr.  Coke  a  particular  account  of  what  had 
been  done  in  America  ? 

4.  Is  it  not  presumable  that  Dr.  Coke  carried  with 
him  a  copy  of  the  printed  Minutes  ? 

5.  Is  it  not  presumable  that  Mr.  Wesley  would  have 
inquired  of  him  whether  minutes  were  not  taken,  know- 
ing our  custom  to  take  minutes  at  all  our  conferences, 
and  also  have  requested  to  see  them  ? 

6.  Could  Dr.  Coke  have  declined  to  show  them,  or 
have  concealed  from  Mr.  Wesley  what  had  been  done, 
without  the  grossest  duplicity  and  positive  falsehood  ? 

7.  Is  it  probable  that  Dr.  Coke  was  not  only  so  kna- 
vish but  so  stupid,  as  to  hazard  his  reputation,  charac- 
ter, standing,  and  even  his  salvation,  thus  cheaply  and 
foolishly,  when  he  must  have  anticipated  with  certainty 
that  Mr.  Wesley  would  at  some  future  time  obtain  a 
knowledge  of  what  had  been  done,  if  he  did  not  then  ? 

8.  If  Dr.  Coke  could  have  been  guilty  of  such  base- 
ness, is  it  not  probable  that  Mr.  Wesley  w^ould  have 
received  information  of  it  from  some  other  quarter ;  at 
least  before  his  death,  which  did  not  take  place  till  nearly 
six  years  afterward  I 

9.  If  Mr.  Wesley  had  ever  discovered  that  Dr.  Coke 
had  so  grossly  betrayed  his  trust,  and  imposed  both  on 
him  and  on  us,  could  he  have  continued  afterward  so 
highly  to  esteem  and  honour  him,  as  he  notoriously  did, 
even  to  the  day  of  his  death  ? 

We  know  that  Mr.  M'Caine  has  represented  that  Mr. 
Wesley  did  punish  Dr.  Coke  for  his  proceedings  at  this 
period  by  leaving  his  name  off  the  Minutes  for  one  year. 


72  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUU  FATHEES. 

But  this  is  an  entire  mistake.  At  this  very  conference 
of  1785,  Dr.  Coke's  name  appears  in  the  British  Minutes 
in  London,  next  after  John  and  Charles  Wesley  them- 
selves. In  1786  he  was  appointed  by  Mr.  Wesley,  as 
Mr.  Crowther  and  Mr.  Myles  both  state,  to  visit  the 
societies  in  British  America.  And  his  name  appears  in 
the  Mmutes  published  hj  Mr.  Wesley  in  the  Arminian 
Magazine  for  that  year,  under  the  head  ''America.'' 
The  reason  why  it  did  not  appear  for  that  year  in  Lon- 
don, as  -Qsual,  was  probably  because  it  was  not  expected 
that  he  would  return  to  England  till  the  ensuing  confer- 
ence, as  we  know  he  did  not.  Yet  previously  to  his 
leaving  England  for  America,  he  attended  and  presided 
in  the  Irish  conference  in  the  year  1786,  by  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's direction,  and  as  Ms  representative.  See  Myles's 
Chronological  History.  Does  this  look  like  being  then 
"  under  censure  T 

In  1787  and  1788  he  was  again  stationed  in  London 
with  John  and  Charles  Wesley.  In  1789  his  name  was 
left  off  the  Minutes ;  but  for  reasons,  as  we  shall  here- 
after show,  which  had  no  shadow  of  connection  either 
with  his  proceedings  at  the  conference  of  1784,  or  with 
his  assuming  the  title  of  bishop,  as  Mr.  M'Caine  asserts. 
In  1790  he  was  again  stationed  in  London  with  John 
and  Charles  Wesley ;  and  in  1791,  at  the  conference 
succeeding  Mr.  Wesley's  death.  Dr.  Coke  stood  first  in 
London. 

In  February,  1789,  Mr.  Wesley  made  his  last  will 
and  testament.  In  that  will  he  constituted  five  import- 
ant trusteeships,  in  all  of  which  he  named  Dr.  Coke 
first,  except  one,  and  in  that  he  named  him  second. 
That  will  Mr.  Wesley  kept  by  him  for  two  years,  and 
left  it  unaltered  to  the  day  of  his  death.  It  is  surely 
needless  to  say  more  to  prove  the  high  estimation  in 
which,  to  his  last  moments,  he  continued  to  hold  Dr. 
Coke.  Nor  could  any  testimony  be  more  honourable  to 
the  memory  of  Dr.  Coke  than  such  a  one  as  this,  from 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  73 

a  man  of  so  much  intelligence,  and  close  and  accurate 
observation  as  Mr.  Wesley ;  and  who  had  means  of 
knowing  Dr.  Coke  certainly  ten  thousand  times  more 
ample  than  Mr.  M'Caine  has  ever  had. 

10.  If  Dr.  Coke,  on  his  return  to  England  in  1785, 
had  succeeded  in  deceiving  Mr.  Wesley,  and  in  conceal- 
ing from  him  the  proceedings  in  America,  is  it  at  least 
probable  that  he  would  have  hazarded  his  own  expo- 
sure and  utter  disgrace,  by  reprinting  in  London  the 
Minutes  of  the  conference  of  1784,  only  one  year  after 
his  return,  and  while  Mr.  Wesley  was  on  the  spot  ?  Yet 
this  he  did  do,  retaining  in  those  Minutes  the  title  of 
"  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  and  declaring  that 
our  societies  here  had  been  formed  into  an  "  episcopal 
church."  Our  question  here  is,  not  whether  Mr.  Wes- 
ley ever  did  actually  see  these  Minutes,  or  not.  This 
we  will  consider  presently.  But  whether  Dr.  Coke,  on 
the  supposition  that  he  had  so  grossly  imposed  on  Mr. 
Wesley,  as  above  stated,  could  have  been  both  so  daring 
and  so  stupid  as  even  to  hazard  his  seeing  them,  by 
causing  them  to  be  repubhshed  in  London  during  Mr. 
Wesley's  hfetime  ? 

11.  Is  it  probable  that  this  edition  of  the  prayer  book, 
with  these  Minutes  in  it,  after  being  thus  published  in 
London,  should  have  continued  in  existence  five  years, 
till  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley,  without  ever  coming  to  his 
knowledge  ?  Such  a  complicated  machinery  of  fraud 
and  villany  must  have  been  kept  in  operation  on  the 
part  of  Dr.  Coke ;  such  a  combination  and  collusion  of 
all  parties  against  Mr.  Wesley  must  have  been  carried 
on  for  so  long  a  time  ;  and  such  surprising  ignorance 
must  have  existed  on  his  part,  for  the  accomplishment 
of  all  this,  as  is,  we  must  confess,  beyond  the  reach  of 
our  highest  credulity. 

Under  all  these  circumstances  we  feel  warranted  in 
asserting  that  Mr.  Wesley  must  have  been  acquainted 
with  these  Minutes,  and  consequently  did  know  that  the 


74  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

societies  here  had  been  formed  into  an  "  episcopal 
church,"  with  the  title  of  "The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church."  And  if  he  did  know  it,  and  did  not  promptly 
and  explicitly  state  his  disapprobation  of  it,  as  we  affirm 
he  never  did,  we  have  a  rig-ht  to  reg-ard  it  as  conclusive 
proof  of  his  sanction. 

But  there  is  yet  stronger  proof  In  the  Arminian 
Magazine  for  1785,  published  by  Mr.  Wesley  himself, 
we  find  the  following  minutes :  "  An  extract  from  the 
minutes  of  a  conference  held  at  London,  July,  1785, 
between  the  Rev.  John  Wesley  and  others."  In  this 
extract,  after  giving  the  stations  of  the  preachers  in 
England,  Mr.  Wesley,  in  a  distinct  place,  adds  the  sta- 
tions in  America.  In  these  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis 
Asbury  are  mentioned  as  superintendents ;  and  the 
names  of  all  the  elders  who  had  been  elected  and  or- 
dained at  the  conference  of  1784  are  then  severally 
stated,  together  with  those  of  Mr.  Whatcoat  and  Mr. 
Vasey. 

In  connection  with  these  Minutes,  and  in  answer  to 
the  question,  ''What  is  the  state  of  our  societies  in 
North  America  ?"  Mr.  Wesley  inserted  also  in  this  place 
the  letter  "'  To  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  our  Brethren 
in  North  America ;"  as  showing  their  state ;  and  on 
doing  so,  makes  this  remarkable  note  : — "  If  any  one  is 
minded  to  dispute  concerning  diocesan  episcopacy  he 
may  dispute  ;  but  I  have  better  work."  See  Arminian 
Magazine,  vol.  viii,  pp.  600-602.  From  the  terms  and 
connection  of  this  note  it  is  highly  probable  that  he  had 
been  charged  with  having  instituted  such  an  episcopacy 
in  America,  and  refused  to  disjmte  about  it ;  preferring 
rather  to  go  on  with  his  7V07^k.  But  if  he  knew  that  he 
had  done  no  such  thing,  and  intended  no  such  thing ; — 
and  much  more,  if  he  had  been  indignant  at  such  an 
idea,  as  Mr.  M'Caine  would  represent,  he  would  simply 
and  flatly  have  denied  the  charge,  and  repelled  the 
statement.    And  with  tliis  charge  agamst  him  too,  there 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  75 

is  the  greater  certainty  that  it  was  then  known  there 
through  Dr.  Coke,  or  the  minutes  of  the  conference  of 
1784,  that  such  an  episcopacy  had  actually  been  esta- 
blished in  America.^ 

Assuming  the  fact  then  that  Mr.  Wesley  did,  at  some 
time  and  in  some  way,  become  acquainted  with  the 
acts  and  proceedings  of  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  and 
of  the  conference  of  1784,  in  the  organization  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  we  ask,  Where  is  the  evi- 
dence that  he  ever  disavowed  them?  or  ever  declared 
that  in  so  doing  they  had  gone  contrary  to  his  instruc- 
tions? Where  is  the  evidence  that  he  ever  objected 
to  that  title  of  the  church,  or  to  the  terms  "  episcopal " 
and  "  episcopacy  ?"  Where  is  the  evidence  that  he  ever 
protested  or  remonstrated  against  either  of  these,  or 
against  our  adoption  of  the  "  episcopal "  form  of  church 
government,  under  the  direction  of  superintendents, 
elders,  and  deacons  ?  If  Mr.  Wesley  knew  that  all  this 
had  been  done  "  surreptitiously"  and  fraudulently  ;  and 
much  more,  if  he  knew  that  it  had  been  imposed  and 
"  saddled"  on  the  societies  against  his  intentions,  and 
under  the  cloak  and  sanction  of  his  name,  would  he  not 
have  declared  it  ?  Would  it  not  have  been  his  dutij  to 
declare  it  ?  and  may  we  not  be  well  assured  that  he 
would  have  done  so,  from  the  plainness  and  decision 
with  which  we  know  that  he  w^as  accustomed  to  speak ; 
and  particularly  at  a  time  wheii  he  was  personally 
charged  and  pressed  by  his  brother  Charles  and  others, 
for  having  thus  "  acted  as  a  bishop,"  as  we  know  he 
was.  Yet  we  deny  that  one  syllable  of  such  evidence 
has  ever  yet  been  produced.  To  the  terms  "  episcopal" 
and  "  episcopacy," — to  our  being  called  the  "  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,"  or  having  adopted  the  "  episcopal " 
form   of   church  government,   Mr.  Wesley   never  did 

*  A  diocesan  episcopacy  is  simply  an  episcopacy  extending  beyond  the 
superintendence  of  a  single  congregation.  A  diocess  is  a  circuit  or  a 
bishop's  jurisdiction,  whether  large  or  small. 


76  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

object;  and  we  challenge  the  production  of  one  par- 
ticle of  testimony  to  show  that  he  ever  did. — What  Mr. 
M'Caine  has  said  with  regard  to  his  letter  to  Bishop 
Asbury  respecting  the  title  "  bishop,"  we  shall  distinctly 
discuss  in  another  place,  and  shall  prove  that  it  does 
not  in  the  slightest  degree  impugn  what  we  have  now 
asserted. 

But  Mr.  M'Caine  says,  p.  17,  "  The  circumstance"  of 
this  edition  of  the  prayer  book  "  being  printed  by  Frys 
and  Couchman,  and  not  by  Mr.  Wesley,  renders  the 
whole  affair  suspicious."  That  "it  was  printed  for 
somebody — perhaps  for  Dr.  Coke,  who  in  1786  was 
under  censure  by  Mr.  Wesley  for  the  address  he  pre- 
sented to  General  Washington," — "  and  contains  an 
article  of  religion  not  contained  in  Mr.  Wesley's  prayer 
book." 

It  is  really  surprising  with  what  uniformity  Mr. 
M'Caine  persists  in  the  plainest  errors  ;  familiarizing  his 
mind  with  "suspicion"  in  the  utter  absence  of  proof; 
withholding  circumstances  which  would  explain  what 
he  wraps  in  "  mystery  ;"  and  exposing  himself  to  a  se- 
verity of  criticism  from  which,  did  justice  to  our  subject 
and  to  the  dead  permit,  we  would  fain  forbear. 

The  address  to  Washington  we  shall  notice  hereafter. 
The  article  of  religion  contained  in  the  prayer  book  of 
1786  which  was  not  in  that  of  1784  is  that  now  num- 
bered the  23d,—"  Of  the  Rulers  of  the  United  States  of 
America,"  which  had  been  adopted  by  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1784,  and  was  most  properly  inserted  in  the 
ensuing  edition  of  the  prayer  book  of  1786.  Had  Mr. 
M'Caine  stated  this,  all  mystery  respecting  the  addition 
of  this  article  would  have  been  dissipated. — It  was  not 
necessary  that  this  prayer  book  should  have  been 
printed  at  Mr.  Wesley's  press.  It  was  not  printed  for 
Mr.  Wesley,  nor  for  the  Methodists  in  England ;  but  for 
those  in  the  United  States,  of  whom  Dr.  Coke  was  a 
superintendent.     Dr.  Coke  was  possessed  of  an  ample 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  77 

fortune,  and  with  a  liberality  amounting  almost  to  pro- 
fuseness,  devoted  his  fortune  to  such  expenses,  and  to 
any  others  which  he  believed  calculated  to  serve  the 
cause  in  which  he  was  engaged.  He  had  procured  the 
printing  of  the  Minutes  previously  in  Philadelphia,  and 
now  pubhshed  another  edition  of  this  prayer  book,  with 
the  minutes  and  articles  of  religion  included,  for  the 
Methodists  in  America.  Frys  and  Couchman  had  been 
in  the  habit  of  printing  for  Mr.  Wesley,  and  were  the 
printers  of  the  second  volume  of  the  Arminian  Maga- 
zine. And  we  can  perceive  nothing  in  this  whole 
affair  calculated  to  render  it  in  the  least  degree  "  sus- 
picious" to  any  but  a  mind  habituated  to  a  suspicious- 
ness which  spares  not  the  characters  even  of  men  who 
have  been  among'  the  brightest  ornaments  of  the  Chris- 
tian  church,  and  as  distinguished  for  their  high  sense 
of  honour  and  propriety  as  for  their  liberality  and  deep 
devotion. 

Mr.  M'Caine  adds,  "After  the  publication  of  the 
prayer  book  of  1786,  a  rule  was  passed  in  the  confer- 
ence that  no  book  should  be  sold  among  his  societies" 
[Mr.  Wesley's]  "  which  was  not  printed  at  his  press. 
But  whether  this  rule  was  passed  with  special  reference 
to  the  prayer  book  of  1786,  or  not,"  he  adds,  "  we  can- 
not say."  That  is,  a  prayer  book  for  the  Methodists 
"in  the  United  States  of  America,"  with  a  prayer  for 
"  the  Rulers  of  the  United  States  of  America,"  and  an 
article  of  religion  acknowledging  these  rulers,  and  Mr. 
M'Caine  could  not  say  whether  it  was  not  intended  for 
sale  among  the  societies  in  England  ;  and  whether  Mr. 
Wesley  and  the  British  conference  did  not  find  it  neces- 
sary gravely  to  pass  a  resolution  prohibiting  the  sale  of 
it  there ! 

But  on  this  point  Mr.  M'Caine  has  suffered  his  spe- 
culations to  carry  him  beyond  his  mark.  He  "  cannot 
say"  that  this  resolution  was  not  "  passed  with  special 
reference  to  the  prayer  book  of  1786."     If  it  were, 


78  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

Mr.  Wesley  must  have  had  knowledge  of  that  prayer 
book.  And  if  he  had,  then  all  the  inferences  which  we 
have  drawn  above  are  amply  confirmed  and  stand  in  full 
force. 


Section  IX. — Bishop  Ashury. 

Our  reverence  for  the  name  and  for  the  character  of 
Mr.  Wesley  is  unfeigned  and  profound.  We  have  never 
felt  free,  however,  to  claim  for  him  absolute  infalli- 
bility ;  or  an  incapableness  of  being  led,  on  any  occa- 
sion, or  in  any  circumstances,  to  use  evfen  too  strong  an 
expression. 

That  his  letter  to  Mr.  Asbury,  on  suffering  himself 
to  be  called  bishop,  contains  expressions  too  severe,  will 
be  admitted,  we  think,  by  his  warmest  friends.  Mr. 
M'Caine,  indeed,  rejoices  over  it  as  one  who  has  found 
great  spoil.  He  seems  delighted  with  it.  Yet  the  dis- 
cerning reader  will  perceive  that,  after  all,  in  summing 
up  in  his  "  conclusion,"  he  has  wholly  misrepresented 
its  import.  "  Let  the  name  of  bishop  and  the  episcopal 
office  as  it  now  exists  among  us,"  says  he,  ''  be  put 
away  for  ever.  In  doing  this,  we  shall  comply  with 
Mr.  Wesley's  advice  to  Mr.  Asbury.  For  my  sake,  for 
God's  sake,  for  Christ's  sake,  put  a  full  end  to  this." 
To  what  ? — To  "  the  episcopal  office  r  We  deny  that 
Mr.  Wesley  ever  advised  any  such  thing,  or  ever  meant, 
or  intended  so  to  be  understood.  It  was  to  the  term 
''bishop"  solely  that  he  objected,  from  the  associations  or- 
dinarily connected  wdth  it  in  the  public  mind,  especially 
in  England.  To  the  "  office"  he  never  did  object ;  nor  to 
the  terms  "  episcopacy"  or  "  episcopal."  The  office  was  of 
his  own  creation,  and  he  intended  it  to  be  perpetuated. 
And  will  Mr.  M'Caine  contend  that  if  the  "  office,"  as  it 
now  exists,  or  was  originally  instituted,  had  been  con- 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  79 

tiimed  from  the  beginning,  as  it  was  for  several  years, 
with  the  title  of  superintendent,  that  the  church  would 
have  been  any  less  episcopal,  in  form  or  in  fact,  or  its 
superintendents  any  less  bishops  ?  The  logic  by  which 
this  should  be  made  out  would  be  a  curiosity."^ 

That  our  views  of  this  letter  correspond  with  those 
of  Mr.  Wesley's  biographer,  and  his  intimate  companion 
and  friend,  the  venerable  Henry  Moore,  who  gave 
publicity  to  the  letter,  will  appear  from  the  following 
quotations. 

"  Mr.  Wesley,"  says  Mr.  Moore,  "  well  knew  the  dif- 
ference between  the  office  and  the  title.  He  knew  and 
felt  the  arduous  duties  and  the  high  responsibility  which 
attach  to  the  one,  and  the  comparative  nothingness  of 
the  other."    Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  p.  278. 

"He  gave  to  those  ETnaKonot,''^  [episcopoi,  bishops,] 
"  whom  he  ordained,  the  modest,  but  highly  expressive 
title  of  superintendents,  and  desired  that  no  other  might 
be  used."  Ibid.,  p.  280.  His  objection  to  the  title 
"  bishop,"  Mr.  Moore  adds,  "  arose  from  his  hatred  of 
all  display." 

Mr.  Asbury  was  of  opinion  that  the  "  unpleasant  ex- 
pressions" in  some  of  the  letters  which  he  received  from 
his  venerable  friend  were  "  occasioned  by  the  misrepre- 

*  On  Dr.  Coke's  return  to  England  after  the  organization  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  he  was  attacked  by  an  anonymous  writer,  supposed  to  have 
been  Mr.  Charles  Wesley.  In  his  defence  he  affirmed,  that  in  his  proceedings 
in  America,  "  he  did  nothing  but  by  a  delegated  power  which  he  received 
from  Mr.  Wesley."  This  he  affirmed  publicly,  under  Mr.  Wesley's  eye  ; 
and  at  a  time  when  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  Mr.  Wesley  had 
seen  the  Minutes  of  the  conference  of  1784.  "On  this  ground,"  says 
Mr.  Drew,  "it  cannot  be  denied,  that  his  plea  of  delegated  authority  is  valid, 
Mr.  Wesley  and  himself  being  identified  together."   Life  of  Dr.  Coke,  p.  101. 

Mr.  M'Caine  asserts,  p.  16,  that  in  the  progress  of  his  work  "documents 
will  be  found,  which  unequivocally  declare  his"  [Mr.  "Wesley's]  "  disappro- 
bation of  the  proceedings  of  the  conference"  [of  1784]  "  in  relation  to  every 
thing  appertaining  to  episcopacy."  This  assertion  we  wholly  deny.  Not 
one  such  document  is  found  in  his  whole  work.  The  mere  title  of  bishop, 
to  which  Mr.  Wesley  did  object,  was  not  the  act  of  the  conference  of  1784  ; 
nor  is  it  at  all  necessary  to  the  existence  of  "  episcopacy,"  which  might 
exist  as  well  without  as  with  it ;  and  did  bo  exist  for  several  years. 


80  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

sentations  of  others.  Yet  he  bore  them  with  a  meek- 
ness which  has  obtained  for  him  the  commendation  of 
Mr.  Wesley's  own  biographer,  who  was  satisfied  that 
Mr.  Asbury  "  was  not  convinced  that  he  had  acted 
wrong,  and  lost  none  of  his  veneration  for  his  father  in 
the  gospel  [Mr.  Wesley]  on  this  occasion."  It  is  mani- 
fest, indeed,  that  Mr.  Moore  himself  was  of  opinion  that 
Mr.  Wesley,  in  this  affair,  had  expressed  himself  too 
strongly,  and  rather  inconsistently  with  his  former  ad- 
missions. "  But  did  he  not,"  says  Mr.  Moore,  "  upon 
this  occasion,  a  little  forget  what  he  had  written  in  his 
addr-ess  to  the  societies  in  America  after  their  separa- 
tion from  the  mother  country  :  '  They  are  now  at  full 
liberty  simply  to  follow  the  Scriptures  and  the  primitive 
church  ;  and  we  judge  it  best  that  they  should  stand  fast 
in  the  liberty  wherewith  God  has  so  strangely  made 
them  free.'  But  the  association  in  his  mind  between 
the  assumed  title  and  the  display  connected  with  it  in 
the  latter  ages  of  the  church,  w^as  too  strong.  He 
could  not,  at  that  moment,  separate  the  plain,  laborious 
bishops  of  the  American  societies,  where  there  is  no 
legal  establishment,  from  the  dignified  prelates  of  the 
mighty  empire  of  Great  Britain. 

"  That  our  brethren  who  are  in  that  office,"  continues 
Mr.  Moore, ''  are  true  Scriptural  bishops,  I  have  no  doubt 
at  all:  nor  do  I  wish  that  the  title  should  be  relin- 
quished, as  it  is  grown  into  use,  and  is  known  by  every 
person  in  the  United  States,  to  designate  men  distin- 
guished only  by  their  simpHcity  and  abundant  labours." 
Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  pp.  286,  287. 

These  extracts  are  full  to  our  purpose,  and  surely 
have  as  much  weight  as  any  thing  that  has  been  said 
by  Mr.  M'Caine. 

At  the  British  conference  held  in  Liverpool,  in  1820, 
we  heard  the  profoundly  learned  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  and 
that  most  able  and  eloquent  divine,  the  Rev.  Richard 
Watson,  express  themselves  publicly  before  the  confer- 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  81 

ence  in  relation  to  our  episcopacy,  to  the  same  effect,  as 
a  true,  actual.  Scriptural  episcopacy,  of  the  most  genu- 
ine and  apostolical  character. 

Mr.  M'Caine  protests  against  loading  the  name  and 
memory  of  Mr.  Wesley  with  the  obloquy  of  intending 
the  episcopal  form  of  church  government  for  the  Ameri- 
can societies,  while  he  so  strongly  opposed  the  use  of 
the  title  bishop.  But  we  put  the  question  to  every  man 
of  candour  : — Did  not  Mr.  Wesley  recommend  and  insti- 
tute for  the  American  societies  a  general  superintend- 
ency,  by  ministers  solemnly  set  apart  for  the  purpose, 
with  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer,  and  all  the  usual 
solemnities  of  ordination,  and  possessing  the  powers  of 
ordination,  and  all  others  usually  considered  episcopal  ? 
And  will  any  man  deny  that  such  a  form  of  govern- 
ment would  have  been  episcopal,  and  such  general 
superintendents  bishops,  though  the  title  bishop  and 
episcopal  had  never  been  used  ? 

Mr.  Wesley's  biographer,  Mr.  Moore,  clearly  held  this 
view  of  the  subject ;  and  certainly  considered  the  asser- 
tion of  it  as  far  from  loading  Mr.  Wesley's  name  or  cha- 
racter with  obloquy.  We  aver  then  that  Mr.  Wesley 
did  intend  the  "  thing''  episcopacy,  for  the  American 
societies,  but  not  the  title  bishop.  We  do  not  say  he 
"secrethf  intended  it.  This  is  a  term  used  by  Mr. 
M'Caine,  not  by  us.  There  was  neither  secret  nor 
"  mystery"  in  it.  Mr.  Wesley  plainly  and  openly  de- 
clared it,  and  solemnly  confirmed  it  by  his  act  and  deed, 
attested  by  his  hand  and  seal,  and  published  to  the 
world.  ■^ 

We  have  maintained  the  position  that  Mr.  Wesley  did 

*  When  the  title  "  bishop"  was  introduced  into  the  Minutes,  it  was  sanctioned 
by  the  conference,  as  meaning  precisely  the  same  thing  with  superintendent. 

Mr.  M'Caine  says,  (p.  38,)  "  It  is  somewhat  remarkable,  that  as  soon  as 
Mr.  Weslei/s  name  u-as  left  out  of  the  Minutes,  the  term  bishop  was  intro- 
duced into  them."  Now  he.had  just  said,  (p.  36,)  "  his  name  was  left  off  the 
Minutes  of  1785."  Yet  the  title  bishop  was  not  introduced  into  the  Minutes 
till  1788.      Why  this  inconsistency  in  the  course  of  two  pages  * 

6 


82  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

in  fact  intend  and  recommend  for  the  American  socie- 
ties the  episcopal  form  of  church  government.  Mr. 
M'Caine  admits  that  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  our 
fathers,  so  asserted.  If  so,  then  he  must  also  admit 
that  they  so  understood  Mr.  Wesley ;  and  in  that  case 
they  cannot  be  blamed  for  acting  and  speaking  accord- 
ing to  their  understanding.  Or,  if  he  will  not  admit 
this,  then  he  must  charge  them  either  with  a  "  myste- 
rious" stupidity,  or  with  knowingly  asserting  wilful 
falsehoods,  and  "  surreptitiously"  introducing,  for  the 
gratification  of  their  ambition,  a  form  of  government, 
"  imposed  upon  the  societies  under  the  sanction  of  Mr. 
Wesley's  name,"  though  they  themselves  did  not  under- 
stand Mr.  Wesley  to  intend  or  to  recommend  any  such 
thing !  Yet  Mr.  M'Caine  says,  (p.  56,)  that  Mr.  Asbury 
"  was  a  great,  wise,  good,  and  useful  minister  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  having  few  to  equal  him."  How  is 
all  this  to  be  reconciled  ?  And  if  we  believe  all  that 
Mr.  M'Caine  has  either  directly  imputed  to  Dr.  Coke 
and  Mr.  Asbury,  or  plainly  enough  insinuated,  of  their 
fraudulent  practices,  for  the  concealment  and  the  esta- 
blishment of  their  forgeries  and  impositions,  who  can 
envy  either  their  wisdom  or  their  goodness  ? 

Mr.  M'Caine  seems  determined,  in  fact,  to  involve  the 
whole  of  the  proceedings  of  those  times  in  a  charge 
of  disingenuousness  and  duplicity,  irreconcilable  with 
either  wisdom  or  goodness ;  and  such  as  could  spring 
from  nothing  but  corrupt  and  bad  motives.  ''  Indeed," 
he  says,  p.  36,  "  there  is  a  mystery  hanging  over  the 
whole  of  the  proceedings  of  those  times,  if  there  is  not 
a  studied  obscurity  and  evasion  in  the  records  of  the 
church."  And  he  does  not  stop  short  of  insinuating,  if 
not  of  roundly  asserting,  that  records  and  dates  were 
altered  and  falsified  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  same 
base  purposes. 

Alas !  what  a  friend  have  the  venerable  dead  found 
in  Mr.  M'Caine.  He  has  ''great  veneratioif  -for  their 
6^ 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  83 

memory !    Yet,  while  he  salutes,  he  stabs  them.     He 
kisses,  and  straightway  leads  them  to  be  crucified. 

If  by  such  means  they  did  indeed  introduce  into  the 
church  an  "  illegitimate  episcopacy,"  hazarding  every 
thing  fair  and  honourable  for  the  sake  of  the  title  of 
"  Methodist  bishops,"  they  must  indeed,  to  use  Mr. 
M'Caine's  language,  have  been  "  strongly  infected  with 
an  episcopal  mania."  And  nothing  but  mania,  on  such 
a  supposition,  can  afford  a  solution  of  their  wickedness 
and  folly. 

In  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Wesley's  letter  to  Mr.  As- 
bury  on  assuming  the  title  of  bishop,  Mr.  M'Caine 
thinks  there  is  a  ''mystery"  unintelligible  without  an 
explanatory  key ;  which  he  of  course  furnishes  to  suit 
his  purpose.  Mr.  Wesley  says,  "  Let  the  Presbyte- 
rians do  what  they  please,  but  let  the  Methodists  know 
their  calling  better."  Now,  says  Mr.  M'Caine,  "  What 
connection  has  this  sentence  with  the  rest  of  his  letter  ? 
We  perceive  none."  But  ?ve  perceive  a  very  plain  con- 
nection ;  and  one  perfectly  "  intelligible,"  without  any 
other  "  explanatory  key"  than  that  of  a  simple  attention 
to  the  subject,  and  a  knowledge  of  the  views  of  the 
Presbyterians  in  relation  to  it.  The  subject  was  a  Me- 
thodist minister's  allowing  himself  to  be  called  bishop — 
Now  the  Presbyterians  do  allow  this.  "  In  the  form  of 
government  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  the  pastors  of 
churches  are  expressly  styled  bishops,  and  this  title  is 
recommended  to  be  retained  as  both  Scriptural  and  ap- 
propriate." Miller's  Letters,  p.  9.  "  Let  the  Presbyte-  i 
rians,"  says  Mr.  Wesley,  "  do  what  they  please,  but  let 
the  Methodists  know  their  calling  better." — Who  does 
not  perceive  the  plain  connection  ? 

Again,  Mr.  M'Caine  says,  pp.  39,  40,  "  Mr.  Asbury 
had  said  he  would  not  receive  any  person  deputed  by 
Mr.  Wesley  to  take  any  part  of  the  superintendency  of 
the  work  intrusted  to  him.  Yet  neither  he  nor  the  con- 
ference refused  to  receive  Dr.  Coke.     Indeed  to  have 


84  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

shown  the  least  symptom  of  opposition  either  to  Mr. 
Wesley  or  to  Dr.  Coke,  at  this  juncture,  would  have 
been  to  prevent  the  accomplishment  of  the  most  ardent 
wishes  of  Mr.  Asbmy  and  the  preachers.  It  would 
have  been  to  dash  the  cup  from  their  lips  when  they 
were  upon  the  very  point  of  tasting  its  sweets.  No 
opposition,  therefore,  was  made.  No  resistance  was 
offered.  Every  thing  went  on  smoothly  ;  and  whether  . 
from  prudence  or  policy,  inclination  or  interest,  Dr. 
Coke  was  received  as  a  superintendent,  and  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's authority  acknowledged  and  respected.  Bat — 
scarcely  had  Mr.  Asbury  begun  to  exercise  the  func- 
tions of  his  new  office,  when  Mr.  Wesley's  authority  was 
rejected,  and  his  name  left  out  of  the  Minutes."— What 
ideas  Mr.  M'Caine  attaches  to  the  terms  "  wise"  and 
"  good,"  w^e  do  not  certainly  know.  But  how  he  can 
call  Mr.  Asbury  wise  and  good,  in  the  very  same  work 
in  which  he  contumally  paints  him  in  such  colours,  upon 
any  principles  of  ethics  which  we  have  ever  studied,  is 
beyond  our  comprehension. 

When  the  conference  of  1784  said  they  judged  it 
expedient  to  form  themselves  into  a  separate  and  inde- 
pendent church,  Mr.  M'Caine  affirms  that  they  meant  that 
they  did  then  "  separate  from  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  English 
Methodists  ;"  and  adds,  "  in  accordance  with  this  declara- 
tion his  name  was  struck  off  the  Minutes  of  conference." 
Yet  the  fact  is,  that  that  same  conference  acknowledged 
themselves  Mr.  Wesley's  sons  in  the  gospel,  ready  in 
matters  belonging  to  church  government  to  obey  his 
commands ;  and  recorded  his  name  on  their  Minutes 
with  this  declaration,  and  left  it  so  recorded  :  and  in  the 
face  of  this  Mr.  M'Caine  makes  the  above  assertion.* 

*  We  had  imagined  that  these  singular  ideas  were  perfectly  novel  ones  of 
Mr.  M'Caine's  ;  till  we  discovered  the  same  in  one  of  Mr.  Hammett's 
pamphlets. 

It  was  more  than  two  years  after  the  organization  of  tlie  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  before  Mr.  Wesley's  name  was  left  off  the  Minutes,  in  the 
proper  sense  of  that  phrase ;  and  it  was  not  done  by  Mr.  Asbury,  nor  by  the 
conference  of  1781.     This  will  be  explained  hereaXter. 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  85 

The  absurdity  of  his  interpretation  of  this  subject,  and 
the  true  meaning-  of  the  phrase  "  separate  and  indepen- 
dent church,"  as  used  bj  the  conference  of  1784,  will 
farther  appear  from  the  following  testimonies. 

The  first  native  American  travelling  preacher  was 
the  late  venerable  Wm.  Watters.  In  his  memoirs  writ- 
ten by  himself,  under  the  date  1777,  he  says,  ''In  fact 
we  considered  ourselves  at  this  time  as  belonging  to  the 
Church  of  England,  it  being  before  our  separation,  and 
our  becoming  a  regularly  formed  church,''  p.  57.  Again : 
''Dec.  25,  1784. — We  became,  instead  of  a  religious 
society,  a  separate  church  under  the  name  of  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church."  Ibid.,  p.  102. 

"From  the  year  1769  to  the  year  1784  the  Method- 
ists were  regular  members  of  the  Church  of  England. 
Since  1784  the  Methodists  in  America  have  been  inde- 
pendent of  the  English  Church,  and  have  had  an  epis- 
copacy of  their  own."  Rev.  Nicholas  Snethen's  Reply 
to  J.  O'Kelly's  ApoL,  p.  61. 

Dr.  Coke,  in  the  sermon  which  he  preached  in  Balti- 
more, on  the  ordination  of  Bishop  Asbury,  expressed 
the  same  sentiments,  in  these  terins,  "  The  Church  of  ' 
England,  of  which  the  society  of  Methodists  in  general 
have  till  lately  professed  themselves  a  part." — And  in 
his  letter  to  Bishop  White  he  expressly  calls  the  sepa- 
ration spoken  of  "  our  plan  of  separation  from  the 
Church  of  England." 

The  Rev.  Ezekiel  Cooper  was  present  at  the  first 
meeting  of  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  in  America ;  one 
of  "  the  most  solemn,  interesting,  and  affectionate  meet- 
ings," he  declares,  "  which  he  has  ever  witnessed."  At 
that  meeting  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper  was 
first  administered  among  the  Methodists  in  this  country 
by  their  own  ministers.  At  that  meeting  he  first  par- 
took of  that  ordinance,  and  then  first  consented  to  enter 
into  the  itinerant  connection.  And  from  that  time  to  the 
present,  no  man  among  us,  probably,  has  ever  more 


V  V 


86  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

studiously  and  thoroughly  acquainted  himself  with  every 
thing  relating  to  Methodism,  and  to  its  origin  and  his- 
tory, and  especially  to  the  origin  and  history  of  the 
Methodist  episcopacy,  than  Mr.  Cooper.  It  will  pro- 
bably be  admitted,  too,  that  few,  if  any,  among  us  are 
more  capable  of  investigating  such  subjects ;  or  have 
had  more  ample  opportunities  and  means  of  searching 
into  them  critically  and  closely.  "We  shall,  therefore, 
avail  ourselves  of  his  testimony  with  confidence :  and 
the  more  so,  as  it  is  well  known  that  he  did  not  in  all 
things  agree  with  Mr.  Asbury  on  some  points  of  eccle- 
siastical polity.  Yet  he  had,  notwithstanding,  a  heart, 
as  well  as  a  head,  to  appreciate  and  to  honour  both  his 
conduct  and  his  motives. 

"  The  conference  met,"  says  Mr.  Cooper,  "  Dec,  1784. 
It  was  unanimously  agreed  that  circumstances  made  it 
expedient  for  the  Methodist  societies  in  America  to  be- 
come a  separate  body  from  the  Church  of  England,  of 
which,  until  then,  they  had  been  considered  as  mem- 
bers."    Cooper  on  Asbury,  p.  108.'^ 

"  From  that  time,"  (UthNov.,  1784,)  says  Mr.  Cooper 
again,  "  I  have  had  a  particular  and  intimate  knowledge 
of  Francis  Asbury,  and  the  manner  of  his  life.  We 
have  had  a  confidential  intercourse,  an  intimate  friend- 
ship, and  union  of  heart.  I  am  confidently  persuaded,  to 
take  him  all  and  in  all,  that  no  man  in  America  ever  came 
up  to  his  standard.  I  have  known  him  rvell,  and  I  have 
known  him  long.  Most  excellent  man;  who  can  but 
admire  him  with  reverence  ?  His  eye  appeared  to  be 
always  single,  and  his  whole  body,  soul,  and  example 

*  It  will  be  observed  that  what  was  considered  the  Episcopal  Church,  in 
this  country,  both  during  and  for  some  tinne  after  the  revolutionary  war,  was 
still  usually  spoken  of  as  the  Church  of  England  ;  although,  strictly  speaking, 
the  Church  of  England  had  ceased  to  exist  in  the  United  States  from  the 
time  of  the  declaration  of  our  independence.  It  was  in  this  common  ac- 
ceptation of  the  phrase  that  all  the  writers  of  those  times  whom  we  quote, 
used  it.  And  even  to  this  day  it  is  known  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  is  sometimes  called  the  Church  of  England. 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  87 

full  of  light.  The  purpose  of  man  is  essentially  con- 
nected with  his  manner  of  life.  The  word  purpose  sig- 
nifies the  design  and  motive  of  the  heart  in  our  actions. 
Now  what  was  the  design,  the  motive,  the  object,  the 
end,  or  the  purpose  of  the  venerable  Bishop  Asbury  ? 
Examine  his  whole  deportment  and  conduct — retro- 
spect and  investigate  his  pubhc  and  private  life.  Look 
into  all  his  movements  and  transactions.  We  have  had 
the  most  indubitable  evidences  of  the  honest  sincerity 
and  strict  integrity  of  his  soul,  and  the  purity  and  up- 
rightness of  his  designs,  intentions,  and  motives.  Next 
to  his  brother  Charles,  no  man  stood  higher  in  the 
esteem  and  confidence  of  Mr.  Wesley  than  Dr.  Coke ; 
and  in  America  no  man  stood  so  high  with  him  as  Mr. 
Asbury."  Ibid.,  pp.  134,  135. 

This  is  the  testimony  of  no  sycophant,  flatterer,  or 
dependant.  It  is  the  honourable  and  faithful  testimony 
of  one  intimately  acquainted  with  the  parties  ;  who  had 
nothing  to  hope  or  to  fear ;  and  who  rendered  his  tes- 
timony after  their  death ;  whose  only  object  was  truth, 
and  justice  to  the  dead ;  and  who  was  himself  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  mind  of  Mr.  Wesley,  having  been  one 
of  his  correspondents,  and  received  from  him  the  last 
letter  that  he  ever  wrote  to  America. 

Had  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Asbury  been  regarded  by 
Mr.  Wesley  in  the  serious  moral  bearing  in  which  Mr. 
M'Caine  has  represented  it,  it  is  impossible  that  a  man 
of  Mr.  Wesley's  discernment,  and  high  sense  of  honour 
and  propriety,  could  have  continued  to  hold  him  in  the 
high  esteem  in  which  we  have  the  most  satisfactory 
evidence  that  he  did. 

Mr.  Asbury  always  believed  that  some  things  respect- 
ing him  had  been  unfairly  represented  to  Mr.  Wesley ; 
and  we  think  that  Mr.  M'Caine  himself  has  furnished 
documents  (though  for  a  very  diflTerent  purpose)  which 
tend  strongly  to  confirm  this  impression.  He  quotes  a 
letter  from  Dr.  Coke  to  Mr.  Wesley,  dated  August  9, 


88-  A    DEFENCE    OF    OUR   FATHERS. 

1784,  in  which  are  these  words,  "  Mr.  Brackenbury  m- 
formed  me  at  Leeds  that  he  saw  a  letter  in  London 
from  Mr.  Asbury,  in  which  he  observed,  '  that  he  would 
not  receive  any  person  deputed  by  you  to  take  any  part 
of  the  superintendency  of  the  work  invested  in  him,  or 
words  evidently  implying  so  much.' "  Now  we  think 
this  account  is  sufficiently  refuted  by  the  unhesitating, 
the  open,  and  the  exceedingly  affectionate  manner  in 
which  Mr.  Asbury  did  receive  and  welcome  Dr.  Coke, 
immediately  on  his  arrival.  This  has  been  attested  by 
Mr.  Cooper,  who  was  an  eye  and  ear  witness.  Indeed, 
Mr.  Cooper  affirms  that  so  touchingly  tender  and  affect- 
ing was  the  scene,  that  he  can  never  forget  it.  It  was 
in  full  view  of  a  large  concourse  of  people, — a  crowded 
congregation  at  a  quarterly  meeting, — and  the  whole 
assembly,  as  if  divinely  struck,  burst  into  a  flood  of 
tears.  If  all  this,  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Asbury,  was  dis- 
simulation and  hypocrisy,  concealing  under  such  a  show 
the  internal  resistance  which  he  felt  to  the  reception 
of  a  coadjutor  from  Mr.  Wesley,  lest  he  should  "  dash 
the  cup  from  his  lips,  when  upon  the  point  of  tasting  its 
sweets,"  then,  indeed,  does  his  memory  deserve  to  be 
branded  with  infamy.  Mr.  Brackenbury  doubtless  said 
w^hat  he  thought, — yet  how  easily  might  he  have  been 
mistaken  in  the  recollection  of  the  expressions  of  a 
letter,  when  undertaking  to  recite  them  from  memory 
at  such  a  distance  ?  How  easily  might  he  have  mistaken 
their  meaning  ?  Indeed,  he  himself  gives  evidence  of  a 
want  of  clearness  of  recollection  as  to  the  exact  expres- 
sions of  that  letter ;  for  he  adds,  "  or  words  evidently 
implying  so  much.''  And  we  know  well  that  a  very 
small,  and  even  undesigned  variation  of  expression,  may 
very  materially  alter  the  sense.  We  have  already  seen 
an  instance  of  this  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Coke's  letter  to 
Bishop  White.  The  import  of  that  letter  has  been, 
clearly  misunderstood,  though  with  the  letter  itself  in 
hand.    Had  we  before  us,  also,  the  letter  of  Mr.  Asbury, 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  89 

to  which  Mr.  Brackenbuiy  alluded,  we  might  perhaps 
be  able  to  show  some  equal  mistake.  We  object, 
therefore,  to  this  parol,  third-handed  report ;  and  unless 
the  document  itself  be  produced,  we  protest  against 
the  statement. 

In  another  letter,  dated  Oct.  31,  1789,  Mr.  M'Caine 
(p.  47)  represents  Mr.  Wesley  as  saying  of  Mr.  Asbury, 
"  He  flatly  refused  to  receive  Mr.  Whatcoat  in  the  cha- 
racter I  sent  him."  Now  this  could  not  have  been. — 
Mr.  Asbury  had  no  power,  of  himself,  to  refuse  to  receive 
Mr.  Whatcoat.  It  was  the  conference  that  refused  to 
receive  him.  If  the  conference  had  received  him,  Mr. 
Asbury  would  have  been  obliged  to  do  so  also,  or  him- 
self to  have  left  the  superintendency.'^ 

Again ;  in  this  same  letter  Mr.  Wesley  is  represented 
as  saying,  "He"  [Mr.  Asbury]  "told  George  Shadford, 
Mr.  Wesley  and  I  are  like  Cesar  and  Pompey — he  will 
bear  no  equal,  and  I  will  bear  no  superior."  Now  let 
it  be  remembered  that  George  Shadford  left  America 
early  in  1778.  At  that  time  Mr.  Asbury  had  been  in 
this  country  himself  but  a  few  years,  and  was  then  in 
the  most  critical  and  perilous  circumstances  in  the  heat 
of  the  revolutionary  struggle,  doubtful  of  his  own 
safety,  and  of  the  fate  of  the  Methodist  societies.  And 
can  we  believe  that  even  then,  or  at  any  period  still 
earlier,  he  seriously  made  such  a  speech  to  George 
Shadford,  declaring  himself  the  rival  of  Mr.  Wesley, 
and  not  brooking  even  his  superiority,  as  Pompey  would 
not  brook  Cesar's  ? — Credat  Judceus  Apelles.  It  was 
known  and  acknowledged,  both  by  Mr.  Asbury  and 
every  other  preacher,  that  his  place  and  office  at  that 
time  was  not  that  of  Mr.  Wesley's  equal  or  rival,  but 

*  That  Mr.  Asbury  did  not  refuse  to  receive  Mr.  Whatcoat,  we  shall,  ia 
another  place,  demonstrate  by  the  most  mdubitable  evidence.  It  is  proper, 
however,  to  add  here,  that  it  was  not  from  personal  objections  to  Mr.  What- 
coat that  the  conference  did  not  then  receive  him  as  a  superintendent ;  but 
for  reasons  which  will  be  hereafter  stated.  They  did  at  a  subsequent  con- 
ference elect  him. 


90  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

of  his  assistant.  Or,  if  this  speech  is  alleged  to  have 
been  made  before  Mr.  Rankin  left  America,  then  at  that 
period  he  was  not  even  Mr.  Wesley's  assistant,  but  sub- 
ject also  to  Mr.  Rankin. 

But  how  happens  it  that  Mr.  M'Caine  has  told  us 
nothing  more  about  this  letter  ?  Why  did  he  not  state 
to  whom  it  was  written,  and  from  what  authority  he 
received  it?  Had  he  not  sufficient  ground  to  be  "sus- 
picious" of  this  "whole  affair?"  Did  he  not  derive  it 
from  one  whom  he  knew  to  have  been  an  avowed,  bitter, 
and  personal  enermj  of  Bishop  Asbury ; — one  who 
laboured  to  distract  and  rend  our  infant  church ; — who 
was  formally  expelled  from  the  British  connection ;  and 
was  directly  charged  by  Dr.  Coke  with  the  grossest 
calumny  and  falsehood  ?  The  documents  in  proof  of 
all  this  are  in  our  possession.  Yet  it  is  from  such 
sources  that  Mr.  M'Caine  has  picked  up,  and,  after  the 
parties  are  all  dead,  has  published  calumnies  which  had 
been  long  since  silenced  and  buried  in  merited  oblivion. 
And  we  here  assert,  that  if  his  publication  be  stripped 
of  the  materials  which  he  has  derived  from  such  sources, 
and  from  the  obsolete  pamphlets  of  Mr.  Kewley,  Mr. 
Hammett,  Mr.  O'Kelly,  and  other  separatists,  and  trou- 
blers  of  our  Israel,  very  little  original  matter  will  be 
found  in  his  whole  production ;  except,  indeed,  the  am- 
plifications and  the  deeper  tincture  which  their  long 
refuted  aspersions  have  received  from  his  pen  ;  and  the 
advantage  which  he  has  taken  of  the  lapse  of  time  and 
the  silence  which  death  has  imposed  on  the  accused,  to 
impute  to  them  unheard-of  frauds  and  forgeries,  which 
in  their  lifetime  no  man  living  had  the  effrontery  even 
to  insinuate.  The  aforesaid  noted  letter  bears  on  the 
face  of  it  marks  of  corruption  or  of  fabrication.  And 
until  better  authority  is  produced  for  it,  or  the  docu- 
ment itself,  we  hold  it  unentitled  to  one  particle  of 
credit. 

Again,  in  the  letter  with  which  Mr.  M'Caine  seems  to 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS  91 

be  SO  much  pleased,  Mr.  Wesley  says  to  Mr.  Asbury, 
"  I  study  to  be  little,  you  study  to  be  gixat ;  I  creep, 
you  strut  along.  I  found  a  school,  you  a  college."  It 
will  be  recollected  that  this  letter  was  written  in  the 
year  after  what  has  been  called  the  leaving  of  Mr. 
Wesley's  name  off  the  Minutes  ;  and  at  a  period  when 
even  his  great  and  excellent  mind  had  not,  perhaps, 
entirely  recovered  from  that  occurrence.  It  is  known, 
too,  that  there  were  individuals  unfriendly  to  Mr.  Asbury, 
who  represented  him  unfairly  to  Mr.  Wesley.  The 
Rev.  Ezekiel  Cooper  himself  intimated  to  Mr.  Wesley 
the  injustice  of  such  representations  ;  and  he  thinks  Mr, 
Wesley  had  allusion  to  this  in  the  last  letter  which  he 
wrote  to  him,  just  before  his  death.  But  had  Mr.  Wes- 
ley been  in  America,  and  himself  witnessed  Mr.  Asbury's 
manner  of  life,  from  the  commencement  of  his  ministry 
among  us  to  its  close,  would  he  have  expressed  him- 
self thus  ?  We  believe  he  would  not.  The  testimony 
of  the  most  intelUgent,  observing,  and  competent  eye- 
witnesses, who  watched  him  narrowly,  and  saw  him  and 
knew  him  intimately,  in  all  situations  and  circumstances, 
in  private  and  in  public,  for  more  than  thirty  years,  is 
vastly  different. 

To  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Cooper,  already  adduced, 
we  add  the  following : — 

"  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  mention,  what  must  be 
so  obvious,  that  in  performing  his  astonishing  annual 
tours,  and  in  attending  to  all  the  vast  variety  of  his 
Christian,  ministerial,  and  episcopal  duties  and  callings, 
he  must  have  been  almost  continually  on  the  move. 
Flying,  as  it  were,  like  the  angel  through  the  earth, 
preaching  the  everlasting  gospel,  no  season,  no  weather 
stopped  him.  Through  winter's  cold  and  summer's  heat 
he  pressed  on.  He  was  often  in  the  tempest  and  the 
storm;  in  rain,  snow,  and  hail;  in  hunger,  thirst,  weari- 
ness, and  afflictions.  Sometimes  uncomfortable  enter- 
tainment, with  hard  lodging,  and   unkind  treatment. 


92  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

'  I  soar,'  said  Mr.  Asbury  himself,  '  but  it  is  over  the  tops 
of  the  highest  mountains.' — Then  to  the  distant  and  re- 
mote settlements,  traversing  solitary  and  gloomy  valleys; 
crossing  and  recrossing  dangerous  waters ;  administer- 
ing the  vi^ord  of  life  in  lonely  cottages,  to  the  poor  and 
destitute  ;  sleeping  upon  the  floor,  or  on  beds  of  straw, 
or  not  much  better,  in  houses  of  logs,  covered  with  barks 
of  trees,  or  wooden  slabs ;  sometimes  lodging  in  the 
wilderness  and  open  air,  with  the  earth  for  his  bed  and 
the  sky  for  his  canopy,  surrounded  by  ravenous  beasts 
and  fierce  savages.  He  knew  how  to  abound  among 
the  wealthy,  and  how  to  endure  hardship  and  want 
among  the  poor.  This  was  his  manner  of  life,  to  spend 
and  be  spent,  in  going  about  from  place  to  place,  like 
his  Master  and  the  disciples  of  old,  in  doing  good.  He 
cheerfully  and  wiUinghj  condescended  to  men  of  low 
estate.  Even  the  poor  African  race,  in  bondage  and 
wretchedness,  were  not  neglected  by  him.  He  attended 
to  their  forlorn  conditio'n,  and  taught  them  the  way  of 
life  and  salvation.  When  among  the  great,  the  honour- 
able, and  the  rich,  he  manifested  humility  in  prosperity  ; 
maintaining,  at  the  same  time,  a  dignified  independence 
of  spirit,  witliout  exaltation.  When  among  the  poor  and 
lower  classes  of  society,  he  showed  a  courteous  conde- 
scension, and  manifested  content  and  patience  in  adver- 
sity. He  went  on  through  good  report  and  through  evil 
report,  among  the  rich,  the  poor,  the  wise,  and  the  un- 
wise : — at  all  times,  among  all  people,  in  all  places,  and 
upon  all  occasions,  his  aim  was  to  promote  the  cause  of 
God ;  to  be  instrumental  to  the  good  of  man,  and  to  the 
salvation  of  precious  souls." — Cooper  on  Asbury,  pp. 
113-117. 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Cooper.  And  who  that 
reads  it,  and  venerates  the  memory  of  the  departed 
Asbury,  will  not  exclaim,  0,  thou  man  of  God,  who 
could  so  have  abused  the  ear  of  the  aged  Wesley,  thy 
venerable  friend,  as  to  have  induced  from  hifn  such 


A  DEFENCE  OP  OUR  FATHERS.  93 

reproof?  But  the  meekness  of  conscious  innocence 
with  which  Mr.  Asbury  received  it,  excites  our  admira- 
tion, not  less  than  the  mingled  emotions  which  must  be 
produced  in  every  generous  breast  at  the  unkindness 
with  which  Mr.  M'Caine  yet  pursues  him  in  the  grave. 

With  regard  to  the  part  which  Mr.  Asbury  acted  in 
founding  a  "  college,''  Mr.  Wesley  was  equally  misin- 
formed. This  matter  has  been  placed  in  its  true  light 
by  Mr.  Asbury  himself,  as  Mr.  M'Caine  might  have 
seen  in  his  Journal.  After  the  college  was  founded,  he 
certainly  did  all  in  his  power  to  support  it.  And  when 
it  was  burned  in  December,  1795,  he  remarks,  "Would 
any  man  give  me  £10,000  per  year,  to  do  and  suffer 
again  what  I  have  done  for  that  house,  I  w^ould  not  do 
it."  But  that  it  was  not  founded  by  Mm,  he  exphcitly 
affirms  in  these  words,  "  I  ?vished  only  for  schools:'  It 
is  true,  Dr.  Coke  w^anted  a  college.  And  the  w^hole 
head  and  front  of  Mr.  Asbury's  offending  is,  that  he 
yielded  to  the  wishes  of  his  colleague  and  his  senior  in 
office,  and  co-operated  with  him. 

Mr.  Asbury's  favourite  plan  w^as  that  of"  district  schools:'' 
These  he  recommended  to  the  members  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church:  and,  in  the  year  1791,  prepared 
an  address  recommending  them.  Mr.  Lee  represents 
this  address  as  having  been  drawn  up  in  1793.  This, 
how^ever,  is  a  mistake  It  may  be  found  in  the  Minutes 
for  1791,  and  is  dated,  "  Near  Salem,  New- Jersey,  Sept. 
16,  1791."  Had  this  plan  been  generally  adopted,  the 
great  wisdom  and  excellence  of  it  w^ould  have  been 
felt  to  this  day. 

With  regard  to  the  naming  of  Cokesbury  College, 
we  believe  Mr.  Asbury  had  no  hand  in  it.  It  w^as  done 
at  the  conference  held  in  Baltimore,  in  June,  1785. 
When  it  was  proposed  to  name  the  college,  different 
names  were  proposed,  such  as  New  Kingswood,  and 
others,  after  places  in  England.  Some  proposed  to  call 
it  Coke  College,  and  others  Asbury  College.    On  which 


94  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

Dr.  Coke,  to  end  the  discussion,  suggested  that  they 
might  unite  those  names,  and  call  it  Cokesbury ;  which 
was  done.  These  facts  we  have  derived  from  persons 
who  were  present  at  that  conference.  He  that  can 
make  a  crime  out  of  them  must  use  his  pleasure. 

The  fact  is,  that  Cokesbury  College,  so  called,  w^as 
really  no  more  than  a  school,  on  the  plan  of  Kingswood. 
This  was  the  plan  agreed  on  between  Dr.  Coke  and 
Mr.  Asbury,  and  is  so  stated  by  Dr.  Coke  in  his  Journal 
of  Nov.  14,  1784.  The  institution  never  was  incorpo- 
rated as  a  college.  This  was  in  contemplation;  but 
before  a  charter  was  obtained,  the  destruction  of  the 
building  by  fire  terminated  the  existence  of  the  whole 
establishment. 

We  may  well  say  then  with  the  late  Rev.  John  Dick- 
ens :  "  Mr.  Asbury  does  not  bear  a  character  like  many 
others,  so  superficial  as  not  to  admit  of  examination 
beneath  its  surface ;  but,  like  fine  gold,  the  more  it  is 
scrutinized,  the  more  its  intrinsic  worth  appears  :  there- 
fore they  who  have  most  thoroughly  investigated  his 
character,  both  as  a  Christian  and  a  minister,  admire  it 
most."    Remarks  on  W.  Hammett,  p.  6. 

The  following  is  the  testimony  of  the  Rev.  Nicholas 
Snethen : — 

"  For  nearly  thirty  years,  he"  [Mr.  Asbury]  "  has 
travelled,  with  a  delicate  and  disordered  constitution, 
through  almost  all  the  inhabited  parts  of  the  United 
States.  Nothing  but  the  wild,  uncultivated  wilderness 
could  fix  his  bounds.  Wherever  there  were  souls  to  be 
saved,  he  has  endeavoured  to  extend  his  labours.  But 
they  have  not  been  such  as  are  endured  by  the  ordinary 
minister.  He  has  not  only  laboured  incessantly  in  the 
word  and  doctrine,  he  has  been  in  perils  in  the  wilder- 
ness,— in  perils  among  false  hrethren — in  journeyings 
often — in  weariness  and  painfulness — in  watchings 
often — in  hunger  and  thirst — in  fastings  often — in  cold 
and  nakedness.     From  the  first  day  he  set  foot  upon 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  95 

American  ground,  unto  the  present  hour,  he  has  never  heen 
Iraown  to  seek  the  honour  that  cometh  from  men;  nor  can 
any  man  accuse  him  of  indulging  the  flesh,  or  seeking 
the  pomp  and  vanity  of  this  world.  We  have  never 
known  him  to  spend  one  day  more  than  was  strictly 
necessary  in  any  city  or  town  upon  the  continent.  We 
have  observed  that  he  never  waits  for  a  solicitation  to 
visit  the  frontiers :  but  we  have  frequently,  after  we 
have  endeavoured  to  dissuade  him  from  these  painful 
and  hazardous  journeys,  looked  after  him  with  anxious 
solicitude,  expecting  never  to  see  his  face  again.-  If 
Mr.  O 'Kelly  and  Mr.  H.  wish  to  know  what  it  is  that 
disposes  the  Methodist  preachers  to  give  such  a  prefer- 
ence to  this  Englishman,  we  answer :  "  It  is  not  his 
native  country, — it  is  not  merely  because  he  is  a  bishop ; 
we  think  nothing  of  hare  titles ;  but  our  preference  is 
founded  in  a  knowledge  of  the  man,  and  his  communi- 
cation. We  have  tried  him  in  all  things,  and  we  have 
alrvays  found  him  faithful  to  the  trust  reposed  in  him  by 
us.  In  him  we  see  an  example  of  daily  labour,  suffer- 
ing, and  self-denial  worthy  the  imitation  of  the  young 
preacher.  In  a  word,  we  have  every  reason  to  esteem 
him  as  2l  father,  and  not  one  reason  to  suspect  or  discard 
him  as  a  tyrant  or  despot^  R,eply  to  Mr.  O'Kelly,  p.  51. 


Section  X. — Testi?nonies  of  English  Methodists. 

Mr.  M'Caine  says,  p.  31,  "Neither  are  the  ordina- 
tions which  he"  [Mr.  Wesley]  "  conferred,  viewed  by 
writers  among  the  English  Methodists,  who  wrote  in 
justification  of  Mr.  Wesley's  right  to  ordain,  as  favour- 
ing our  title  to  episcopacy."  And  in  support  of  this 
assertion,  he  quotes  a  passage  from  the  English  Method- 
ist Magazine  for  1825,  which  states  that  Mr.  Wesley 


96  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

"gave  up  episcopal  ordination  as  imderstood  by  high 
churchmen,'"  and  established  the  "  validity  of  presbyte- 
rian  ordination."  But  who  ever  disputed  this  ?  Are  not 
both  these  propositions  as  clearly  maintained  by  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  by  our  brethren  of  the 
British  Connection?  That  any  "  contrary  statement 
coming  from  our  book  agents"  in  this  country,  has  ever 
been  made  or  published,  is  an  assertion  wholly  un- 
founded. 

On  the  character  of  our  episcopacy  we  have  already 
stated  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  and  of  the 
K,ev<  Richard  Watson.  We  have  also  quoted  a  passage 
from  the  Rev.  Henry  Moore,  the  intimate  friend  of  Mr. 
Wesley,  and  his  faithful  biographer,  in  which  he  says 
of  our  bishops  :  ''  That  our  brethren  who  are  in  that 
office  are  true  Scriptural  bishops,  /  have  no  doubt  at  all; 
nor  do  I  wish  that  the  title  should  be  relinquished." 
Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  p.  287. 

To  these  testimonies  we  add  the  following,  from  the 
Rev.  Jonathan  Crowther,  author  of  the  Portraiture  of 
Methodism. 

"  Peace  being  now  established  with  the  United  States ; 
and  Mr.  Asbury  and  the  other  preachers  having  been 
instrumental  of  a  great  revival  during  the  w^ar,  solicited" 
[Mr.  Wesley]  "  to  send  them  help.  Hence,  in  February 
this  year"  [1784]  "  he  called  Dr.  Coke  into  his  chamber, 
and  spoke  to  him  nearly  as  follows  :  That  as  the  Ame- 
rican brethren  wanted  a  form  of  discipline,  and  minis- 
terial aid;  and  as  he  ever  wished  to  keep  to  the 
Bible,  and  as  near  to  primitive  Christianity  as  he 
could,  he  had  always  admired  the  Alexandrian  mode  of 
ordaining  bishops.  The  presbyters  of  that  great  apos- 
tolical church  would  never  allow  any  foreign  bishop  to 
interfere  in  their  ordinations :  but  on  the  death  of  a 
bishop,  for  two  hundred  years,  till  the  time  of  Diony- 
sius,  they  ordained  one  of  their  own  body,  and  by  the 
imposition  of  their  own  hands.     Adding  withalj  that  he 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  97 

wished  the  doctor  to  go  over  and  estabhsh  that  mode 
^mong  the  American  Methodists. 

"  All  this  was  quite  new  to  the  doctor.  The  idea  of 
an  Alexandrian  ordination  was  at  first  somewhat  re- 
volting to  his  prejudices.  However,  being  about  to  set 
out  for  Scotland,  he  weighed  the  subject  for  two  months, 
and  then  wrote  his  entire  approbation  of  the  plan.  Ac- 
cordingly, he  was  ordained  bishop,  and  brothers  What- 
coat  and  Vasey  presbyters."  Second  English  edition, 
pp.  412,  413. 

The  same  statement  is  made  by  the  Rev.  Joseph 
Sutcliffe,  an  eminent  Wesleyan  Methodist  minister,  in 
his  "  Short  Memoirs  of  Thomas  Coke,  LL.  D."  This 
work  was  republished  by  Daniel  Hitt  and  Thomas 
Ware,  in  1815. 

But  Mr.  M'Caine  relies  on  the  English  Wesleyan 
Methodist  Magazine,  and  quotes  the  volume  for  1825. 
Let  us  see,  then,  how  this  work  supports  him.  That 
same  volume  contains  a  "  Review  of  the  Rev.  Henry 
Moore's  Life  of  Rev.  John  Wesley,"  in  which  we  think 
we  recognise  the  style  of  one  of  the  most  eminent  men 
in  the  British  connection.  The  following  interesting 
passages,  extracted  from  it,  are  a-s  clearly  and  as  fully 
to  our  purpose  as  if  they  had  been  written  for  us. 

"  The  author,"  says  the  reviewer  of  Mr.  Moore,  "  has 
spent  some  time  in  showing  that  episcopacy,  by  name^ 
was  not  introduced  into  the  American  Methodist  society 
by  the  sanction  of  Mr.  Wesley,  who,  though  he  in  point 
oi  fact  did  ordain  Uslioips  for  the  American  societies, 
intended  them  to  be  called  'superintendents'  To  the 
statement  of  this  as  an  historical  fact,  no  objection  cer- 
tainly hes ;  but  the  way  in  which  it  is  enlarged  upon, 
and  the  insertion  of  an  objurgatory  letter  from  Mr.  Wes- 
ley to  Mr.  Asbury  on  the  subject, — can  have  no  tend- 
ency but  to  convey  to  the  reader  an  impression  some- 
what unfavourable  to  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  as 
though  they  were  ambitious  of  show  and  title.  Mr. 
7 


98  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

Moore,  indeed,  candidly  enough  relieves  this,  by  admit- 
ting that,  on  Mr.  Wesleifs  pri7iciple  itself,  and  in  his  own 
view,  they  were  true  Scriptural  episcopoi,  and  that  Mr. 
Wesley's  objection  to  the  name,  in  fact,  arose  from  its 
association  in  his  mind  rather  with  the  adventitious 
honours  which  accompany  it  in  church  establishments, 
than  with  the  simplicity  and  pre-eminence  of  labour, 
care,  and  privation,  which  it  has  from  the  first  exhibited 
in  America,  and  from  which  it  could  not  from  circum- 
stances depart.  According  to  this  showing,  the  objec- 
tion was  grounded  upon  no  principle,  and  was  a  mere 
matter  of  taste  or  expediency. — Whether  the  name  had 
or  had  not  the  sanction  of  Mr.  Wesley,  is  now  of  the 
least  possible  consequeyice,  as  the  episcopacy  itself  was  of 
HIS  CREATING."  English  Wesleyan  Methodist  Magazine 
for  1825,  p.  183. 

Clearer  testimonies  from  the  most  eminent  English 
Methodists,  we  could  not  desire :  and  we  cheerfully 
submit  it  to  the  reader  whether  such  men  as  these  were 
not  likely  to  be  as  well  acquainted  with  the  subject  as 
Mr  M'Caine ;  and  whether  their  judgment  be  not  a 
sufficient  counterpoise  to  his  ? 

In  addition  to  the  above,  however,  we  have  now 
before  us  a  London  edition  of  Dr.  Coke's  Journal,  with 
a  preface  dated,  "  City  Road,  London,  Jan.  25,  1790 ;" 
accompanied  wdth  a  dedication  "  To  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wes- 
ley." In  this  dedication  Dr.  Coke  states  that  he  had 
found  in  Mr.  Wesley  "  a  father  and  a  friend  for  thirteen 
years."  If  we  compare  this  with  the  period  at  which 
Dr.  Coke  became  connected  w^ith  Mr.  Wesley,  which 
was  between  Aug.  1776  and  Aug.  1777,  it  will  just  bring 
us  down  to  the  date  of  the  preface ;  and  this  date,  too, 
is  in  that  very  year  [conference  year]  in  which  Dr. 
Coke's  name  was  left  off  the  British  Minutes.  It  is 
hardly  to  be  presumed,  then,  that  Dr.  Coke  would,  at 
that  period  particularly,  have  published  and  dedicated  to 
Mr.  Wesley,  as  his  father  and  friend,  what  he  -knew  to 
7^ 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  99 

be  denied  by  Mr.  Wesley,  and  to  be  peculiarly  offen- 
sive to  him.  Yet  in  these  very  Journals,  page  106, 
Dr.  Coke  says,  und  said  it  to  Mr.  Wesleij,  ''  On  the  9th 
of  March"  [1789]  "  we  began  our  conference  in  Georgia. 
Here  we  agreed  (as  we  have  ever  since  in  each  of  the 
conferences)  that  Mr.  Wesley's  name  should  be  inserted 
at  the  head  of  our  Small  Minutes,  and  also  in  our  Form 
of  Discipline. — In  the  Small  Minutes  as  the  fountain  of 
our  EPISCOPAL  office ;  and  in  the  Form  of  Discipline  as 
the  father  of  the  whole  work,  under  the  Divine  guid- 
ance. To  this  all  the  conferences  have  cheerfully  and 
unanimously  agreed."  Now  where  is  the  evidence  that 
Mr.  Wesley  ever  "remonstrated"  against  this,  or  ex- 
pressed the  slightest  displeasure  at  it  1  On  the  contrary, 
considering  the  circumstances  then  existing,  is  it  not 
absolutely  preposterous  to  believe  that  Dr.  Coke  would 
have  dedicated  such  a  statement  to  him,  if  he  had  not 
had  the  best  reasons  to  believe  that  it  would  meet  his 
approbation  ?  This  statement  also  completely  refutes  the 
insinuation  that  the  American  conferences  possessed  any 
disposition  to  treat  Mr.  Wesley  with  disrespect  or  "  con- 
tempt ;"  much  less  to  "  excommunicate"  him !  It  may 
serve  to  satisfy  another  writer,  also,  what  is  meant  in  the 
Minutes  of  1789,  by  saying  that  Mr.  Wesley,  Dr.  Coke, 
and  Mr.  Asbury  exercised  the  episcopal  office  "  by  regu- 
lar order  and  succession."  The  intention  was  simply  to 
acknowledge  Mr.  Wesley's  precedence.  To  guard  against 
any  other  construction,  a  note  is  added  to  that  observa- 
tion in  the  Minutes,  referring  to  another  place,  in  which 
the  idea  of  the  fabulous  apostolical  succession  is  ex- 
pressly resisted  by  the  bishops  themselves. 


100         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 


Section  XI. — Dr.  Coke. 

Mr.  M'Caine  states  that  the  manner  in  which  the 
doctor  discharged  the  duties  of  the  new  office  he  was 
appointed  to  fill,  and  the  title  of  bishop  which  he  as- 
sumed, in  connection  with  Mr.  Asbury  in  their  joint 
address  to  General  Washington,  "president  of  the  Ame- 
rican congress,"  involved  him  in  difficulties  with  Mr. 
Wesley  and  the  British  conference ;  and  that  Mr. 
Wesley  called  him  to  an  account  for  his  conduct,  and 
punished  him  by  leaving  his  name  out  of  the  Minutes 
for  one  year. 

As  Mr.  M'Caine  professes  to  make  the  authority  of 
Mr.  Drew  the  basis  of  his  account  of  this  affair,  we  shall 
first  take  it  up  on  his  own  ground,  and  shall  show,  from 
his  own  authority,  that  had  he  presented  the  subject 
fully,  as  Mr.  Drew  has  done,  instead  of  exposing  Dr. 
Coke  to  reproach,  it  would  demand  for  him,  from  us, 
both  our  admiration  and  our  veneration. 

According  to  Mr.  Drew,  the  charge  alleged  against 
Dr.  Coke  in  the  British  conference,  was  neither  "  the 
manner  in  which  he  discharged  the  duties  of  the  new 
office  he  was  appointed  to  fill,"  nor  his  having  assumed 
"  the  title  of  bishop  :"  but  simply,  that  he,  being  a  British 
subject,  had  expressed  to  General  Washington  senti- 
ments, m  relatio7i  to  the  American  revolution,  which,  as 
a  British  subject,  they  conceived  he  ought  not  to  have 
expressed.  Mr.  Drew,  though  himself  a  British  subject, 
has  vindicated  both  the  conduct  and  the  motives  of  Dr. 
Coke  on  that  occasion,  with  a  triumphant  ability  which 
leaves  us  nothing  to  add.  A  few  fuller  extracts  from 
the  same  pages  from  which  Mr.  M'Caine  took  his, 
will  place  the  subject  in  the  fair  and  candid  light  in 
which  it  is  regarded  by  Dr.  Coke's  more  magnanimous 
biographer. 

"It  is  well  known,"  says  Mr.  Drew,  ''that  in  the 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         101 

unhappy  contest  between  Great  Britain  and  America, 
Mr.  Wesley  very  warmly  espoused  the  cause  of  England, 
and  reprobated  the  conduct  of  the  colonists.  This  cir- 
cumstance placed  the  Methodists  in  a  very  suspicious 
light  in  the  eyes  of  the  Americans.  The  contest  was 
indeed  now  brought  to  an  issue.  But  although  the  tem- 
pest had  subsided,  the  agitation  which  it  occasioned  still 
continued,  and  the  waves  were  occasionally  heard  to 
beat  upon  the  shore.  The  suspicions,  therefore,  which 
the  Methodists  incurred,  it  was  incumbent  on  them  to 
wipe  away.  The  citizens  thought  it  their  duty  to  rally 
around  the  infant  government,  and  to  express  their  ap- 
probation of  the  principles  which  had  been  adopted. 
Among  these  citizens  the  different  religious  sects  pre- 
sented their  addresses.  Amidst  these  examples,  and 
under  the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  the  Method- 
ists were  placed,  it  was  scarcely  possible  for  them  to 
avoid  making  a  similar  acknowledg'ment  without  incur- 
ring  the  vengeance  of  their  foes.  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr. 
Asbury  having  assumed  the  character  of  bishops,  were 
in  the  eyes  of  all  the  acknowledged  head  of  the  Ameri- 
can Methodists  :  and  no  address  could  be  considered  as 
official  unless  it  bore  their  signatures,  as  the  orocan  of 
the  body.  Thus  circumstanced,  an  address  was  drawn 
up,  and  signed  by  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  in  behalf 
of  the  American  Methodists,  and  presented  to  General 
Washington. 

"  Dr.  Coke  had  both  a  private  and  a  public  consist- 
ency of  character  to  sustain.  As  a  subject  of  Great 
Britain,  tenacious  of  the  consistency  of  his  personal 
actions,  prudence  would  have  directed  him  not  to  sign. 
But  as  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  filling  an  official 
station  in  the  Methodist  societies,  and  as  a  superintend- 
ent in  America,  the  welfare  of  the  gospel  commanded 
him  to  promote  its  interests,  and  to  leave  all  private  con- 
siderations as  unworthy  of  bearing  the  name  of  rival. 
Between  these  alternatives  he  made  a  noble  choice,  and 


102         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

acted  upon  an  exalted  principle,  to  which  none  but  su- 
perior spirits  can  aspire.  He  has  taught  us  by  his 
magnanimous  example  that 

'  Private  respects  to  public  weal  must  yield,' 

and  that  personal  reputation  was  no  longer  his  when 
the  interests  of  Christianity  demanded  the  costly  sacri- 
fice. By  walking  on  this  vast  and  comprehensive  circle, 
he  has  encircled  his  name  with  wreaths  of  laurel,  which 
will  continue  to  flourish,  when  the  sigh  of  smiling  pity, 
and^of  sneering  condolence  can  be  no  longer  heard. 
Those  who  still  continue  to  censure  his  conduct  on  the 
present  occasion,  now  the  mists  of  prejudice  are  done 
away,  and  all  the  consequences  of  each  alternative 
appear  in  their  proper  bearings,  plainly  tell  us  how  they 
would  have  acted  under  similar  circumstances,  if,  like 
him,  they  had  been  called  to  feel  the  touch  of  Ithuriel's 
spear. 

"A  copy  of  this  address  was  introduced"  [into  the 
British  conference]  "  as  a  ground  of  censure  against  the 
doctor.  It  was  urged  against  him,  that,  as  a  subject  of 
Great  Britain,  it  was  inconsistent  with  his  character  to 
sign  the  address.  That  several  expressions  therein 
contained,  in  favour  of  the  American  government,  im- 
plied a  severe  reflection  on  our  own,"  [the  British,]  "  and 
could  not  justly  have  been  used  by  a  British  subject. — 
That,  as  a  member  of  the  Methodist  society  in  England, 
and  a  leading  character  in  the  connection,  his  conduct 
was  calculated  to  provoke  the  indignation  of  government, 
— and  finally,  that  the  address  itself  was  a  tacit  im- 
peachment of  Mr.  Wesleifs  political  sentiments,  and  tended 
to  place  the  whole  body  of  Methodists"  [in  England] 
"  in  a  very  equivocal  and  suspicious  light. 

"Dr.  Coke  heard  these  charges  urged  against  him 

IN    PROFOUND    SILENCE. 

"  Under  these  circumstances,  as  some  decisive  steps 
were  necessary  to  be  taken  in  this  critical  affair,  it  was 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         103 

finally  determined  that  the  name  of  Dr.  Coke  should  be 
omitted  in  the  Minutes  for  the  succeeding  year.  This 
prudent  resolution  had  the  desired  effect,  and  the  busi- 
ness of  conference  proceeded  and  terminated  in  peace. 

"  But  this  silent  mark  of  disapprobation,  as  was  evi- 
dent from  the  effects  which  followed,  was  on  the  whole 
more  nominal  than  real.  The  doctor  still  maintained  his 
rank  in  Mr.  Wesleifs  affectionate  regard,  and  continued  to 
retain  those  offices  rvhich  he  had  hitherto  filled.  At  the 
conclusion  of  the  conference  he  proceeded  as  though 
nothing  disagreeable  had  occurred,  travelling  through 
the  societies  in  the  same  manner  as  he  had  travelled 
before  he  went  to  America."  Drew's  Life  of  Dr.  Coke, 
pp.  102-145. 

Such  was  the  "  punishment"  then  of  Dr.  Coke.  Such 
the  cause  that  led  to  it.  Such  the  "  profound  silence" 
with  which  he  heard  the  charge,  and  the  Regulus-like 
magnanimity  and  self-devotion  with  which  he  acted,  for 
the  sake  of  beloved  America  and  of  American  Methodists. 
And  shall  they  forget  him ;  or  now  remember  him  only 
to  stain  him  with  dishonour  !    ''  O  tell  this  not  in  Gath." 

It  will  be  observed  that  Mr.  M'Caine  repeatedly 
asserts  that  the  address  to  General  Washington,  by  Dr. 
Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  was  presented  in  the  year  1785, 
Now  in  that  address  they  styled  themselves  bishops. 
We  ask  then,  according  to  Mr.  M'Caine's  dates,  why 
was  it  that  neither  Mr.  Wesley  nor  the  British  confer- 
ence did  then  object  to  that  title,  or  censure  Dr.  Coke 
for  it?  Mr.  M'Caine,  indeed,  says  his  assuming  that  title 
in  that  address  was  a  ground  of  the  omission  of  his 
name  in  the  British  Minutes.  This  we  deny.  It  is  an 
assertion  wholly  gratuitous,  and  iinsupported  by  one 
particle  of  testimony.  But  if  that  address  was  presented 
to  General  Washington  in  1785,  it  follows  that  Dr. 
Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  had  taken  the  title  of  bishops 
three  years  previously  to  the  introduction  of  it  into  the 
Minutes,  and  without  censure.    This  title  was  not  intro- 


104         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

duced  into  the  Minutes  till  1788 ;  nor  was  Mr.  Wesley's 
objurgatory  letter  to  Mr.  Asbury  written  till  September^ 
1788.  And  though  Dr.  Coke  was  completely  in  Mr. 
"Wesley's  power  during  this  interval,  yet  it  does  not 
appear  that  he  inflicted  on  him  the  smallest  penalty. 
Can  Mr.  M'Caine  explain  all  this,  and  still  assert  that 
the  address  was  presented  to  General  Washington  in 
1785  ■? 

But,  on  the  hypothesis  of  Mr.  M'Caine's  dates,  there 
is  something  still  more  curious  in  this  affair.  He  main- 
tains that  the  address  to  General  Washington  was  pre- 
sented before  Dr.  Coke  left  the  United  States  in  1785 ; 
that  it  was  published  in  the  newspapers;  and  that  a 
copy  of  it  was  introduced  into  the  British  conference, 
as  a  ground  of  censure  against  the  doctor,  on  his  return 
to  England  in  that  same  year. 

Now,  supposing  these  facts,  is  it  not  a  singular  con- 
jecture that  Mr.  Asbury  or  his  friends,  in  order  to 
screen  him  also  from  "  punishment,"  or  with  any  other 
motive,  should  have  "  changed  the  date  of  this  address," 
and  pubhshed  it  with  an  "altered"  date,  four  years 
later  than  the  true  one,  if  it  had  been  published  in  the 
newspapers  four  years  before  with  its  true  date,  carried 
across  the  Atlantic,  and  laid  before  Mr.  Wesley,  the 
British  conference,  and  the  world !  In  other  words, 
that  Mr.  Asbury  or  his  friends,  from  any  motive,  should 
have  committed  such  a  stupid  forgery  in  the  falsification 
of  an  official  document,  when  both  he  and  they  must 
have  known  that  the  means  of  their  exposure  were  so 
notorious  that  their  detection  and  conviction  would  be 
inevitable  ?  For  it  will  be  recollected  that  the  parties 
were  then  all  living,  and  the  circumstances  all  recent ; 
and  matters  of  pubhc  notoriety.  From  what  principle 
so  vile  an  insinuation  could  proceed,  on  ground  not  only 
so  futile,  but  so  perfectly  and  manifestly  absurd,  the 
reader  must  form  his  own  conclusion. 

It  will  by  no  means  excuse  Mr.  M'Caine  to  say  that 


A  DEFENCE    OF    OUR   FATHER^.  105 

he  does  not  directly  assert  "  by  whom  this  thing  was 
done."  Every  reader  of  his  work  cannot  but  consider 
Mr.  Asbury,  or  his  friends,  or  both,  as  imphcated.  The 
"  History  and  Mystery"  of  the  "  Episcopacy"  of  those 
days  was  his  subject ;  and  the  appHcation  is  so  plain 
that  he  who  runs  may  read.  Besides,  by  whomsoever 
it  was  done,  Mr.  Asbury  must  either  have  been  privy 
to  it,  or  certainly  have  known  it  afterward,  and  Dr. 
Coke  also.  And  on.  this  ground,  at  all  events,  they 
stand  implicated  by  this  insinuation,  in  the  guilt  of 
having  at  least  countenanced  and  concealed  an  act  of 
such  criminahty  and  baseness. 


Section  XII. — Methodist  Episcopacy. 

The  following  views  of  our  episcopacy  were  those  of 
the  bishops  themselves,  as  contained  in  the  notes  of  the 
Discipline  prepared  by  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  at 
the  request  of  the  General  Conference. 

"The  most  bigoted  devotees  to  religious  establish- 
ments (the  clergy  of  the  church  of  Rome  excepted^) 
are  now  ashamed  to  support  the  doctrine  of  the  apos- 
tolic, uninterrupted  succession  of  bishops, — and  yet 
nothing  but  an  apostolic,  uninterrupted  succession  can 
possibly  confine  the  right  of  episcopacy  to  any  particu- 
lar church."  And  "  the  idea  of  an  apostolic  succession 
being  exploded,  it  follows  that  the  Methodist  Church 
has  every  thing  which  is  Scriptural  and  essential  to  jus-. 
tify  its  episcopacy."    Ed.  1798,  pp.  6,  7. 

"  Nor  must  we  omit  to  observe"  [speaking  of  primi- 
tive episcopacy]  "that  each  diocess  had  a  college  of 
elders  or  presbyters,  in  which  the  bishop  presided.     So 

*  Perhaps  a  few  others,  who  still  claim  a  very  near  relationship  to  Rome, 
ought  to  have  been  included  in  this  exception. 


106         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

that  the  bishop  by  no  means  superintended  his  diocess 
in  a  despotic  manner,  but  was  rather  the  chief  execu- 
tor of  those  regulations  which  were  made  in  the  college 
of  presbyters."  Ibid.,  8. 

Nothing  has  been  introduced  into  Methodism  by  the 
present  episcopal  form  of  government  which  was  not 
before  fully  exercised  by  Mr.  Wesley. — But  the  autho- 
rity of  Mr.  Wesley  and  that  of  the  bishops  in  America 
differ  in  the  following  points  : 

"  1.  Mr.  Wesley  was  the  patron  of  all  the  Methodist 
pulpits  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  for  life,  the  sole 
right  of  nomination  being  invested  in  him  by  all  the 
deeds  of  settlement. — But  the  bishops  in  America  pos- 
sess no  such  power.  The  property  of  the  preaching 
houses  is  invested  in  the  trustees,  and  the  right  of  nomi- 
nation to  the  pulpits  in  the  General  Conference,  and  in 
such  as  the  General  Conference  shall  from  time  to  time 
appoint.^  Here,  then,  lies  the  grand  difference  between 
Mr.  Wesley's  authority,  in  the  present  instance,  and  that 
of  our  American  bishops.  The  former,  as  (under  God) 
the  father  of  the  connection,  was  allowed  to  have  the 
sole,  legal,  independent  nomination  of  preachers  to  all  the 
chapels ;  the  latter  are  entirely  dependant  on  the  Gene- 
ral Conference."  Ibid.,  40,  41. 

''But  why  does  the  General  Conference  lodge  the 
power  of  stationing  the  preachers  in  the  episcopacy? 
We  answer,  On  account  of  their  entire  confidence  in  it. 
If  ever,  through  improper  conduct,  it  loses  that  confi- 
dence in  any  considerable  degree,  the  General  Confer- 
ence will,  upon  evidence  given,  in  a  proportionable 
degree,  take  from  it  this  branch  of  its  authority.  But 
if  ever  it  betrays  a  spirit  of  tyranny  or  partiality,  and 
this  can  be  proved  before  the  General  Conference,  the 
whole  will  be  taken  from  it :  and  we  pray  God  that  in 

*  With  this  before  our  eyes,  is  it  not  strange  that  any  candid  writer  should 
attempt  to  excite  odium  against  the  bishops,  by  representing  our  churches  as 
"  bishops'  property  1" 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         107 

such  case  the  power  may  be  invested  in  other  hands." 
Ibid.,  41. 

"  And  we  verily  beheve,  that  if  our  episcopacy  should 
at  any  time,  through  tyrannical  or  immoral  conduct, 
come  under  the  severe  censure  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence, the  members  thereof  would  see  it  iiighly  for  the 
glory  of  God  to  preserve  the  present  form,  and  only  to 
change  the  men."    Ibid.,  42. 

"  2.  Mr.  Wesley,  as  the  venerable  founder  (under 
God)  of  the  whole  Methodist  society,  governed  without 
any  responsibility  whatever  ; — but  the  American  bishops 
are  as  responsible  as  any  of  the  preachers.  They  are 
perfectlij  subject  to  the  General  Conference."  Ibid.,  42. 
The  words  "  entirely  dependant'^  and  ''perfectly  subjecf 
are  printed  in  Italics  by  the  bishops  themselves,  to  invite 
our  particular  attention  to  this  acknowledged  fact. 

After  naming  one  other  point  of  comparison  between 
the  powers  of  Mr.  Wesley  and  those  of  our  bishops, 
viz.,  in  the  entire  management  of  all  the  conference 
funds,  which  he  possessed,  and  they  do  not;  the 
bishops  thus  conclude  : — 

"  We  have  drawn  this  comparison  between  our  vene- 
rable father  and  the  American  bishops,  to  show  to  the 
world  that  they  possess  not,  and,  we  may  add,  they  aim 
not  to  possess,  that  power  which  he  exercised,  and  had 
a  right  to  exercise,  as  the  father  of  the  connection; — that, 
on  the  contrary,  they  are  perfectly  dependant ;  that  their 
power,  their  usefulness,  themselves,  are  entirely  at  the 
mercy  of  the  General  Conference."  Ibid.,  43,  44. 

Now  what  more  can  we  desire  than  such  acknowledg- 
ments and  declarations,  freely  and  voluntarily  made  by 
the  bishops  themselves  ?  And  with  what  propriety,  in 
the  face  of  them,  can  our  episcopacy  be  denominated 
ian  "  absolute  episcopacy ;"  or  the  bishops  our  "  masters." 

The  power  of  stationing  the  preachers  is  certainly  a 
great  and  weighty  power,  for  the  due  and  faithful  exer- 
cise of  which  the  bishops  should  be  carefully  and  watch- 


108         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

fully  held  to  a  strict  responsibility.  But  it  is  a  power 
vested  in  them  by  the  preachers  themselves,  and  as 
liable  to  be  modified,  or  to  be  wholly  taken  from  them, 
whenever  the  body  of  preachers  shall  judge  such  a 
measure  expedient  or  necessary.  The  weight  of  this 
power  rests  upon  the  itinerant  preachers.  But  surely, 
they  of  all  men  have  the  least  right  to  complain  of  it, 
since  the  vesting  of  it,  and  the  continuing  of  it  in  the 
bishops,  is  their  own  voluntary  act  and  choice.  They 
have  submitted,  and  continue  to  submit  to  it,  often, 
doubtless,  with  many  and  great  inconveniences  and 
sacrifices,  because  they  have  beheved  it  most  efficient, 
with  an  itinerant  ministry,  for  the  spread  of  the  gospel 
and  for  the  good  of  the  church.  And  it  is  believed  that 
our  members,  with  very  few  exceptions,  have  always 
been  of  the  same  opinion. 

The  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  have 
no  control  w^hatever  over  the  decisions  of  either  a  erene- 
ral  or  an  annual  conference.  Whereas  the  bishops  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  have  an  absolute  nega- 
tive in  their  general  conventions,  and  no  act  whatever 
can  be  passed  in  their  church  without  the  consent  of  the 
house  of  bishops,  though  it  might  even  be  unanimously 
agreed  to,  and  ardently  desired  by  the  whole  body,  both 
of  the  clergy  and  laity ;  a  power  certainly  greatly  su- 
perior to  any  power  possessed  by  the  bishops  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Another  evidence  of  the  dependance  of  our  bishops 
on  the  General  Conference  is,  that  if  they  cease  to  travel 
without  the  consent  of  that  body,  they  become  imme- 
diately incapable  of  exercising  among  us  any  episcopal 
or  other  ministerial  function.  In  other  words,  as  the 
bishops  in  their  notes  interpret  this  part  of  our  Disci- 
pline, they  "  are  obliged  to  travel  till  the  General  Con- 
ference pronounces  them  worn  out  or  superannuated ;" 
a  restriction  which,  as  they  justly  remark,  is  not  to  be 
found  in  any  other  episcopal  church. 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         109 

Again  :  a  bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
cannot  ordain  a  single  individual,  except  in  the  mode 
prescribed  by  the  General  Conference,  by  the  vote  and 
direction  of  an  annual  conference. 

In  the  notes  on  the  Discipline,  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr. 
Asbury  did  indeed  claim  the  right,  on  their  responsibility 
to  God,  binding  them  to  "  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no 
man,"  to  "  suspend  the  ordination  of  an  elected  person," 
if  such  reasons  appeared  clearly  against  it  that  they 
could  not  loroceed  with  a  good  conscience.  But  they,  at 
the  same  time,  acknowledged  the  necessity  and  the 
obligation  of  great  caution  in  the  exercise  of  this  claim. 
And  we  are  not  aware  that  a  single  instance  of  the 
actual  exercise  of  it  has  ever  yet  occurred  since  the 
organization  of  our  church.  That  cases  might  occur, 
and  that  facts  might  take  place  or  come  to  light,  even 
after  the  election  of  individuals  for  orders,  in  which  it 
would  be  the  conscientious  duty  of  a  bishop  to  suspend 
proceeding  in  the  ordination,  there  can  be  few  persons 
so  unreasonable  as  not  to  admit.  And  how  the  claim 
of  this  right  to  ''  suspend"  an  ordination  in  such  a  case 
can  be  represented  as  censurable  on  the  part  of  the 
bishops,  as  it  has  been  by  a  late  writer,  we  do  not  un- 
derstand. It  is,  in  fact,  expressly  required  of  them  by 
the  Discipline  : — "  If  any  crime  or  impediment  be  ob- 
jected, the  bishop  shall  surcease  from  ordaining  that 
person,  until  such  time  as  the  party  accused  shall  be 
found  clear  of  the  crime." — See  the  form  of  ordainino- 
both  deacons  and  elders. 

The  late  Rev.  John  Dickens,  in  his  remarks  on  the 
proceedings  of  Mr.  Hammett,  says,  in  relation  to  the 
superiority  of  our  bishops,  as  derived  not  from  their 
"  separate  ordination,"  but  from  the  suffrages  of  the 
body  of  ministers, — "  Pray,  when  was  it  otherwise  ?" — 
and  "  how  can  the  conference  have  power  to  remove 
Mr.  Asbury  and  ordain  another  to  fill  his  place,  if  they 
see  it  necessary,  on  any  other  ground  V    Mr.  Hammett 


110        A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

had  said,  "  Let  your  superintendents  know  therefore,— 
that  their  superiority  is  derived  from  your  suffrages,  and 
not  by  virtue  of  a  separate  ordination.  Gain  and  esta- 
bhsh  this  point,  and  you  sap  the  foundation  of  all  arbi- 
trary poMAer  in  your  church,  for  ever."  Mr.  Dickens 
rephes,  ''  Now  who  ever  said  the  superiority  of  the 
bishops  was  by  virtue  of  a  separate  ordination?  If 
this  gave  them  their  superiority,  how  came  they  to  be 
removable  by  the  conference  ?  If  then  what  you  there 
plead  for  will  sap  the  foundation  of  all  arbitrary  power, 
it  has  been  sapped  in  our  connection  from  the  first  esta- 
bUshment  of  our  constitution,"  p.  31.  Again  he  remarks, 
p.  32,  "  We  all  know  Mr.  Asbury  derived  his  official 
power  from  the  conference,  and  therefore  his  office  is 
at  their  disposal."  "  Mr.  Asbury,"  he  says  in  another 
place,  "  was  thus  chosen  by  the  conference,  both  before 
and  after  he  was  ordained  a  bishop ;  and  he  is  still  con- 
sidered as  the  person  of  their  choice,  by  being  respon- 
sible to  the  conference,  who  have  power  to  remove  him, 
and  fill  his  place  with  another,  if  they  see  it  necessary. 
And  as  he  is  liable  every  year  to  be  removed,  he  may 
be  considered  as  their  annual  choice,"  p.  15.  The  high 
standing  of  John  Dickens  is  too  well  known  to  need 
any  statement  of  it  here.  He  was  also  the  particular 
and  most  intimate  friend  of  Bishop  Asbury.  And  the 
pamphlet  containing  the  above  sentiments  was  published 
by  the  unanimous  request  of  the  conference  held  at  Phi- 
ladelphia, Sept.  5,  1792;  and  may  be  therefore  consi- 
dered as  expressing  the  views  both  of  that  conference 
and  of  Bishop  Asbury  in  relation  to  the  true  and  origi- 
nal character  of  Methodist  episcopacy.  It  may  be  con- 
fidently affirmed  then,  that  the  Methodist  episcopacy,  if 
preserved  on  its  original  basis,  as  it  ever  should  be,  has 
as  little  independent  power  as  the  episcopacy  of  any 
other  episcopal  church  whatever. 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         Ill 

Section  XIII. — Title  Bishop. 

Episcopos,  (Greek,) — episcopus,  (Latin,) — a  bishop, 
or  overseer.  The  Hebrew  paked,  as  the  Greek  epis- 
copos, whence  the  Anglo-Saxon  bischop,  and  our 
Enghsh  word  bishop, — is  any  man  that  hath  a  charge 
and  office  for  any  business,  civil  or  ecclesiastical.  It  is 
derived  from  etvl,  (epi,)  super,  and  aKo^eiv,  (skopein,)  inien- 
dere,  supemitendere,  to  superintend.  And  hence  superin- 
tendent, from  the  Latin,  is  of  precisely  the  same  import 
as  bishop  from  the  Greek. — "  Inter  iipeaiSvTepov,  tamen,  et 
EmcKOKov,  hoc  interest :  UpecrjSvrepog  uomon  est  ordinis :  Ema- 
Konos  nomen  in  illo  ordine  officii."  Between  bishop  and 
presbyter  there  is  nevertheless  this  difference.  Presby- 
ter is  the  name  of  an  order.  Bishop  is  the  name  of  an 
office  in  that  order.     See  Leigh's  Critica  Sacra. 

Originally,  "  the  name  EmffKOKoi,"  [episcopoi,  bishops,] 
given  "  to  the  governors  of  the  church  under  the  gos- 
pel," was  "a  name  importing  Jw^y  more  ths^n  honour ; 
and  not  a  title  above  presbyter.''^     Irenicum,  p.  286. 

We  say  then,  with  the  Rev.  Asa  Shinn,  that  "  intelli- 
gent Christians,  before  they  either  vindicate  or  vilify  a 
simple  name,  will  inquire  into  its  precise  signification." 
We  have  done  so  with  regard  to  our  term  bishop.  And 
the  inquiry  conducts  us  to  the  conclusion,  that  it  may 
be  vindicated,  but  cannot  be  justly  vilified. 

The  following  is  the  Rev.  Nicholas  Snethen's  account 
of  the  introduction  of  the  term  bishop,  in  addressing  our 
superintendents. 

Mr.  O'Kelly  had  asserted  that  "  about  the  year  1787, 
Francis  directed  the  preachers,  whenever  they  wrote  to 
him,  to  title  him  bishop."  Mr.  Snethen  replies,  that 
among  Mr.  Asbury's  acquaintance  the  assertion  suffi- 
ciently refutes  itself,  and  that  no  one  who  has  ever 
known  the  man  can  possibly  give  it  credit  for  a  moment ; 
and  adds, 


112        A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

"  Some  time  after  ordination  was  introduced  among 
us,  several  of  the  ministers  altered  the  inscription  of 
their  letters  to  each  other  from  '  Mr.'  to  '  Rev.'  Some 
■were  dissatisfied:  they  thought  that  it  savoured  more 
of  pride  than  of  piety ;  others  had  more  serious  scru- 
ples, and  even  doubted  whether  it  were  not  impious  to 
address  men  in  a  style  and  title  given  to  Jehovah  him- 
self, as  in  Psalm  cxi,  9  :  '  Holy  and  reverend  is  his 
name.'  In  the  conference  for  1787,  this  was  made  a 
subject  of  conversation,  for  the  sake  of  those  of  scrupu- 
lous consciences.  The  conference  advised  that  every  one 
should  use  his  own  choice  ;  and  that  those  who  doubted 
the  propriety  of  Reverend  might  give  the  simple  name, 
with  the  official  character,  as  bishop,  elder,  or  deacon.  It 
was  not  thought  proper  to  expose  this  little  circum- 
stance in  print."     Reply  to  James  O'Kelly,  pp.  10,  11. 

The  same  liberty  still  exists.  No  man  is  obliged  to 
style  our  general  superintendents  bishops.  Any  that 
choose  to  retain  the  original  title  of  superintendent  are 
perfectly  at  liberty  to  do  so,  whether  in  writing  or  other- 
wise. By  some  the  latter  title  is  still  most  generally 
■used ;  and  by  most,  if  not  by  all  of  us,  it  is  frequently 
used,  without  scruple,  as  synonymous  with  bishop  ;  and 
not  only  equally  proper  but  equally  respectful.  Indeed, 
according  to  Mr.  Snethen's  statement,  the  conference  of 
1787  seem  to  have  considered  the  title  bishop  less  ex- 
ceptionable to  scrupulous  consciences  than  that  of 
Reverend ;  and  advised  the  use  of  the  former  by  those 
who  scrupled  the  propriety  of  using  the  latter.  Yet 
this  title  Reverend,  we  have  not  understood  that  Mr. 
M'Caine  himself  has  ever  declined;  nor  some  other 
gentlemen  of  our  modern  days,  who  war  with  titles 
much  less  august. 

Mr.  M'Caine,  p.  42,  quotes  "  a  writer,"  who  states  that, 
"  in  1786  Mr.  Asbury  proposed  to  Mr.  Wesley  three 
persons  to  be  appointed  bishops  for  the  United  States, 
to  act  under  Mr.  Asbury."    Mr.  Wesley's  answer,  he 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         113 

says,  is  worthy  to  be  engraven  in  characters  of  gold. 
It  was,  he  states, — "  Daring  my  Hfe  there  shall  be  no 
archbishops  in  the  Methodist  Church.  But  send  me  the 
man  of  your  choice,  and  I  shall  have  him  appointed 
joint  superintendent  with  you."  Now,  admitting  this 
.statement,  we  ask,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  if 
what  we  maintain  is  not  here  confessed  :  viz.,  that  Mr. 
Wesley  himself  considered  the  term  "  superintendent" 
as  synonymous  with  bishop  ?  Why  did  he  refuse  to 
appoint  a  superintendent  to  act  under  Mr.  Asbury  ?  Be- 
cause this  would  have  been  making  Mr.  Asbury  an 
<a!7-cAbishop ;  that  is,  a  bishop  over  bishops.  Of  course 
the  superintendent  under  him  would  have  been  a  bishop. 
According  to  this  statement,  then,  as  <2rc/isuperintendent 
means  archbishop,  it  necessarily  follows,  that  '' johit 
superintendent"  means  joint  bishop,  and  superintendent 
simply  bishop. 

The  following  extract  of  a  letter  from  the  late  Rev. 
and  venerable  Wm.  Watters,  will  shed  farther  light  on 
this  subject. 

"My  Dear  Brother, 

"  That  there  should  be  those  who  through  prejudice 
think  the  Methodists,  since  they  have  had  bishops 
among  them,  are  quite  a  different  people,  is  not  strange. 
But  is  it  not  strange  that  those  who  have  known  them 
from  the  beginning  should  admit  such  a  thought,  till 
they  have  investigated  the  matter  thoroughly  ?  All  must 
know  that  names  do  not  alter  the  nature  of  things.  We 
have  from  the  beginning  had  one  among  us  who  has 
superintended  the  whole  work.  At  first  this  person  was 
solely  appointed  by  Mr.  Wesley,  and  called  the  gene- 
ral assistant :  at  a  time  when  there  were  none  but  Euro- 
pean preachers  on  the  continent.  But  why  was  the 
name  of  general  assistant  ever  changed  ?  All  that  will 
open  their  eyes  may  know  why.  The  Methodists  in 
England  and  in  America  formerly  did  not  call  them- 
8 


114         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

selves  a  particular  church ;  but  a  religious  society  in 
connection  with  different  churches,  but  mostly  with  the 
Episcopal  Church.  After  the  revolutionary  war  the 
Episcopal  clergy  became  very  scarce,  and  in  far  the 
greatest  number  of  our  societies  we  had  no  way  of 
receiving  the  ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper.  It  was  this  that  led  many  of  our  preachers,  as 
you  well  know,  to  take  upon  them  the  administration 
of  the  ordinances.  Mr.  Rankin,  who  was  our  first 
general  assistant,  after  staying  the  time  in  this  country 
he  came  for,  returned  home.  This  was  at  a  time  when 
we- had  no  intercourse  with  England,  and  Mr.  Asbury, 
the  only  old  preacher  that  determined  (in  those  perilous 
times)  to  give  up  his  parents,  country,  and  all  his  natu- 
ral connections,  was  finally  and  unanimously  chosen 
by  the  preachers  (assembled  in  conference)  our  general 
assistant.  He  continued  such  until  the  year  1784,  when 
the  doctor  came  over,  and  not  only  the  name  of  gene- 
ral assistant  was  changed  to  that  of  superintendent,  but 
we  formed  ourselves  into  a  separate  church.  This 
change  was  proposed  to  us  by  Mr.  Wesley,  after  we 
had  craved  his  advice  on  the  subject ;  but  could  not  take 
effect  till  adopted  by  us ;  which  was  done  in  a  delibe- 
rate, formal  manner,  at  a  conference  called  for  that 
purpose,  in  which  there  was  not  one  dissenting  voice. 
Every  one  of  any  discernment  must  see  from  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's circular  letter  on  this  occasion,  as  well  as  from 
every  part  of  our  mode  of  church  government,  that  we 
openly  and  avowedly  declared  ourselves  episcopahans ; 
though  the  doctor  and  Mr.  Asbury  were  called  super- 
intendents. After  a  few  years  the  name,  from  superin- 
tendent, was  changed  to  bishop.  But  from  first  to  last, 
the  business  of  general  assistant,  superintendent,  or 
bishop  has  been  the  same ;  only  since  we  have  become 
a  distinct  church,  he  has,  with  the  assistance  of  two  or 
three  elders,  ordained  our  ministers ;  whose  business  it 
is  to  preside  in  our  conferences,  and  in  case  of  an  equal 
8^ 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         116 

division  on  a  question,  he  has  the  casting  vote ;  but  in 
no  instance  whatever  has  he  a  negative,  as  you  are  told. 
He  has  also  the  stationing  of  all  the  travelling  preach- 
ers, under  certain  limitations  ;  which  power,  as  it  is 
given  him  by  the  General  Conference,  so  it  can  be 
lessened  or  taken  from  him  at  any  time  conference  sees 
fit."^  But  while  he  superintends  the  whole  w^ork,  he 
cannot  interfere  with  the  particular  charge  of  any  of  the 
preachers  in  their  stations.  To  see  that  the  preachers 
fill  their  places  with  propriety,  and  to  understand  the 
state  of  every  station  or  circuit,  that  he  may  the  better 
make  the  appointment  of  the  preachers  is,  no  doubt,  no 
small  part  of  his  duty ;  but  he  has  nothing  to  do  with 
receiving,  censuring,  or  excluding  members ;  this  be- 
longs wholly  to  the  stationed  preacher  and  members." 
Memoirs,  p.  103. 

Mr.  M'Caine,  p.  34,  reproaches  our  fathers  with  enter- 
ing Mr.  Wesley  in  the  Minutes  of  1789  as  a  "bishop," 
— "  after  it  was  known  that  the  very  term  was  so  ex- 
tremely offensive  to  him."  This  is  not  correct.  They 
did  enter  him  as  exercising  ''  the  episcopal  office''  But 
they  did  not  entitle  him  "bishop."  The  former  was 
not  offensive  to  him.  He  well  knew  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  title  and  the  office.  The  latter  he  did  exer- 
cise, and  asserted  his  right  to  exercise  it.  And  w^e  have 
already  shown,  from  the  extract  of  Dr.  Coke's  Journals, 
that  the  statement  of  his  having  been  so  entered  in  the 
American  Minutes  w^as  published  in  England  in  Mr. 
Wesley's  lifetime,  and  dedicated  to  himself.  This  gave 
him  no  offence.  On  the  contrary,  when  pressed  con- 
cexning  his  "  acting  as  a  bishop,"  he  did  not  deny,  but 
justified  it,  and  answered,  "  I  firmly  beheve  that  I  am  a 

*  As  our  General  Conferences  were  originally  constituted,  they  possessed 
the  power  of  our  whole  hedy  of  ministers.  Whenever  the  powers  of  the 
present  delegated  General  Conference  are  spoken  of  in  this  work,  it  is  of 
course  to  be  understood  agreeably  to  the  principles  of  the  restrictive  limit- 
ations. 


116         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

Scriptural  episcopos,  as  much  as  any  man  in  England 
or  in  Europe.  For  the  uninterrupted  succession  I  know- 
to  be  a  fable,  which  no  man  ever  did  or  can  prove." 

Letter  to  the  Rev. on  the  Church.     Works,  vol. 

xvi,  English  edition. 


Section  XIV. — Organization  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church. 

Our  argument  has  hitherto  been  conducted  on  the 
ground  that  Mr.  Wesley  did  institute,  and  did  intend  to 
institute,  under  the  title  of  superintendents,  an  episco- 
pacy for  the  American  Methodists  ;  and  that  by  Dr. 
Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  our  fathers,  it  was  so,  honestly 
and  in  good  faith,  understood.  And  in  this  we  are  w^ell 
satisfied  that  the  candid  and  intellig-ent  reader  will  agree. 

But  leaving  out  of  view,  for  argument's  sake,  the  re- 
commendation of  Mr.  Wesley  altogether,  w^e  are  still 
prepared,  in  the  circumstances  which  then  existed,  to 
defend  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

Had  Mr.  Asbury  been  actuated  by  the  dishonourable 
motives  of  ambition  and  self-aggrandizement  imputed  to 
him,  how^  easy  had  it  been  for  him  to  have  accomplished 
his  purpose,  and  to  have  organized  a  church  in  Ame- 
rica, with  himself  at  its  head,  independently  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley and  of  the  w^hole  European  connection.  And  what 
plausible  pretext  or  occasion  did  he  want?  Early  in 
the  revolutionary  struggle  every  other  English  preacher 
had  fled.  He  alone,  through  the  contest,  devoted  him- 
self to  American  Methodism,  at  the  risk  and  hazard  of 
every  thing  dear.  Mr.  Wesley  himself  had  openly  and 
publicly  espoused  the  royal  cause  against  the  colonies. 
This  greatly  embarrassed  the  American  Methodists,  and 


I 

I 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         117 

especially  the  preachers,  who  were  watched,  and  hunted, 
and  imprisoned,  and  beaten,  as  his   emissaries ;    and, 
through  him,  as  the  disguised  emissaries  of  Great  Britain. 
The  societies,  except  in  very  few  instances,  were  desti- 
tute of  the  sacraments.    They  could  neither  obtain  bap- 
tism for  their  children,  nor  the  Lord's  supper  for  them- 
selves.    On  this  account,  as  early  as  1778,  Mr.  Asbury 
was  earnestly  importuned   to  take  measures  that  the 
Methodists  might  enjoy  the   same  privileges  as  other 
churches.     He  resisted  the  proposal.     Yet  so  serious 
was  the  crisis,  that  a  large  number  of  the  preachers,  to 
satisfy  the  urgent  necessities  of  the  societies,  chose  from 
among  themselves  three  senior  brethren,  who  ordained 
others  by  the  imposition  of  their  hands.     Among  these 
were  some  of  the  ablest  and  most  influential  men  then 
in  the  connection.     Surely  no  man  ever  had  a  fairer  or 
a  more  plausible  opportunity  than  Mr.  Asbury  then  had, 
to  organize  and  to  place  himself  at  the  head  of  the  Me- 
thodist Church  in  America,  independently  of  Mr.  Wesley. 
Yet  it  was  he  who,  with  the  late  venerable  Watters,  : 
Garrettson,  and  others,  resolutely  remained  in  connec-  \ 
tion  with  Mr.  Wesley  ;  and  rested  not  till  by  his  inde-   j 
fatigable  labours  the  whole  of  the  seceding  body  were   i 
brought  back,  to  await  and  to  abide  by  Mr.  Wesley's   I 
advice.     And  this  is  the  same  man  who,  after  his  death,  ' 
is  now  charged  with  the  vilest  dissimulation  and  hypo- 
crisy, and  with  violating  the  obligations  both  of"  honour" 
and  of  "truth,"  for  the  sake  of  organizing  a  church, 
separate  from   and  independent  of  Mr.  Wesley,  with 
himself  at  its  head  in  conjunction  with  another ! 

Dr.  Coke  was  appointed  and  set  apart  by  Mr.  Wesley, 
aided  by  other  presbyters,  as  a  general  superintendent 
of  the  American  Methodists.  In  that  character  he  was 
unanimously  received  by  the  American  conference,  and 
with  their  consent  was  to  exercise  episcopal  powers 
among  them,  and  to  act  as  a  bishop,  though  called  a 
superintendent. 


118         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

Mr.  Asbury  was  unanimously  chosen  by  the  same 
conference,  to  be  a  general  superintendent  conjointly 
with  Dr.  Coke.  He  was  first  ordained  deacon  and 
elder,  and  then  superintendent,  agreeably  to  the  unani- 
mous voice  of  the  conference,  by  Dr.  Coke,  a  presbyter 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and  Richard  Whatcoat  and 
Thomas  Vasey,  who  had  been  previously  ordained  pres- 
byters by  Mr.  Wesley,  Dr.  Coke,  and  Mr.  Creighton, 
presbyters  of  the  Church  of  England ;  with  the  assist- 
ance of  Mr.  Otterbine,  a  presbyter  of  the  German  Re- 
formed Church. 

T-he  intention  of  the  conference  was,  that  Mr.  Asbur}' 
also  should  exercise  episcopal  powers,  and  act  as  a 
bishop,  though  to  be  called  a  superintendent ;  and  the 
church  was  then,  and  thenceforth,  called  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church. 

Admitting  the  validity  of  ordination  by  presbyters, 
and  that,  in  such  an  exigency,  they  may  even  ordain 
bishops,  such  as  are  contended  for  in  these  pages,  as 
we  have  shown  they  may,  on  what  ground  is  the  Me- 
thodist episcopacy,  thus  understood,  and  thus  instituted, 
in  such  circumstances  to  be  pronounced  "  illegitimate," 
unlawful?  It  is  true  Mr.  M'Caine  persuades  himself 
"  that  the  impartial,  intelligent,  and  pious  of  other  deno- 
minations" will  so  pronounce  it.  And  he  has  certainly 
done  all  in  his  power  to  induce  them  to  do  so  ;  and  not 
only  "  the  intelligent  and  pious"  of  other  denominations, 
but  the  bigoted  and  prejudiced  of  every  description,  and 
especially  the  avowed  enemies  of  the  Methodist  Church ; 
separatists,  and  such  as  have  been  expelled  from  her 
communion  ;  the  restless  and  dissatisfied  within  it ;  and 
the  enemies  of  Christianity  in  general.  To  such  Mr. 
M'Caine's  book  has  doubtless  afforded  a  high  gratifica- 
tion. But  if  there  be  any  law,  divine  or  human,  prohi- 
biting or  proscribing  such  an  episcopacy,  let  it  be  pro- 
duced. Let  the  edict  itself  be  shown,  and  let  not  any 
man  think  us  impertinent  if,  in  demanding  the  produc- 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  119 

tion  of  it,  we  require  that  the  terms  of  the  edict  be  very- 
express  and  positive. 

If  this  matter  be  pressed  still  farther,  we  then  insist 
that  the  unanimous  election  and  appointing  of  the  first 
Methodist  bishops  was  of  itself  sufficient,  in  the  circum- 
stances then  existing,  to  constitute  a  valid  episcopacy, 
according  to  the  judgment  of  Archbishop  Cranmer,  and 
those  divines  who  concurred  with  him,  as  stated  by 
Stillingfleet.  And  let  those  who  maintain  that  any  other 
authority  was  indispensable  to  its  legitimacy,  produce 
their  warrant.  And  let  them  remember  beforehand  that 
we  are  not  to  be  governed  by  tradition. 

If  it  be  objected  that  those  proceedings  took  place 
among  the  preachers  only,  we  answer :  This  was  unde- 
niably in  accordance  with  the  original  principle  on 
which  the  Methodist  societies  had  been  gathered,  and 
united  by  the  preachers,  who  determined  on  what  prin- 
ciples of  discipline  and  of  administration  they  would 
devote  themselves  to  take  charge  of,  to  guide,  and  to 
serve  those  who,  upon  these  principles,  chose  to  place 
themselves  under  their  care,  and  especially  upon  what 
principles  they  could  feel  themselves  at  liberty  to  admi- 
nister to  them  the  ordinances. 

If  there  were  any  law  of  God  or  man  making  this 
"  illegitimate,"  unlawful,  on  the  part  of  the  preachers, 
let  this  edict  also  be  produced.  In  the  days  of  "the 
fathers'''  and  of  the  founders  of  Methodism,  at  all  events, 
both  in  Europe  and  in  America,  we  hazard  the  assertion 
that  these  were  principles  recognised  and  acquiesced  in 
by  the  Methodist  people  also.  That  it  necessarily  fol- 
lows, however,  from  these  premises,  that  any  modifica- 
tion of  this  system  in  all  after  time,  and  in  any  change 
of  circumstances,  is  absolutely  precluded,  is  what  we 
do  not  here  mean  to  say.  Nor  is  that  a  field  into  which 
our  present  subject  requires  us  at  all  to  enter. 

But  leaving  out  of  view,  for  the  present,  any  circum- 
stances which  might  be  collected  of  the  divine  appro- 


120         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

bation  of  the  proceedings  of  the  conference  of  1784, 
from  the  great  and  signal  blessings  which  followed  upon 
the  labours  of  the  preachers,  and  the  special  prosperity 
of  the  work  from  that  time,  we  will  conclude  this  part 
of  our  subject  with  an  argument  which,  with  some  of 
our  opponents,  perhaps,  may  have  more  weight. 

We  maintain,  then,  that  the  proceedings  of  that  con- 
ference in  organizing  the  "  Methodist  Episcopal  Church," 
with  general  superintendents,  vested  with  episcopal 
powers,  and  intended  to  act  as  bishops,  were  in  fact,  if 
not  mform,  approved  and  sanctioned  by  the  people,  the 
Methodist  people,  of  that  day.  And  that  the  preachers 
set  apart  at  that  conference,  in  their  appropriate  and 
respective  characters,  as  deacons,  elders,  and  superin- 
tendents or  bishops,  were  freely  and  cordially  received 
and  greeted  by  the  people  as  such  ;  and  the  sacraments 
gladly  accepted,  as  they  had  long  been  urgently  de- 
manded, at  their  hands.     Our  proofs  follow. 

"  The  Methodists  were  pretty  generally  pleased  at 
our  becoming  a  church  ;  and  heartikj  united  together,  in 
the  plan  which  the  conference  had  adopted.  And  from 
^A^^me  religion  greatly  revived."  Lee's  History,  p.  107. 

"  25th  December,  1784.  We  became,  instead  of  a  reli- 
gious society,  a  separate  church,  under  the  name  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  This  change  gave  great 
satisfaction  through  all  our  societies^  William  Watters' 
Memoirs,  by  Himself,  p.  102. 

"The  conference  met  December,  1784.  It  was  una- 
nimously agreed  that  circumstances  made  it  expedient 
for  the  Methodist  societies  in  America  to  become  a  sepa- 
rate body  from  the  Church  of  England.  They  also 
resolved  to  take  the  title,  and  to  be  known  in  future  by 
the  name  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  They 
made  the  episcopal  office  elective, — Mr.  Asbury  was 
unanimously  elected,  and  Dr.  Coke  w^as  also  unani- 
mously received,  jointly  with  him,  to  be  the  superintend- 
ents, or  bishops,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         121 

From  that  time  the  Methodist  societies  in  the  United 
States  became  an  independent  church,  under  the  epis- 
copal mode  and  form  of  government.  This  step  met 
with  general  apyrohation,  both  among  the  preachers  and 
the  members.  Perhaps  we  shall  seldom  find  such  una- 
nimity of  sentiment  upon  any  question  of  such  magni- 
tude."    Rev.  Ezekiel  Cooper  on  Asbury,  pp.  108,  109. 

Of  those  who  w^ere  members  of  the  church  at  that 
period,  very  few  are  now  living.  And  of  such  as  are, 
these  are  not  they  who  now  complain  of  that  act.  That 
those  who  have  voluntarily  united  themselves  to  this 
church  since,  knowing  it  to  be  thus  constituted ; — and 
some  perhaps  who  have  left  other  churches  to  join  it ; 
— or  boys  of  yesterday,  who  but  a  few  days  ago  soli- 
cited admission  into  it,  thus  organized ; — ^that  these 
should  now  represent  the  government  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  as  a  tyrannical  usurpation  over  them, 
is  an  abuse  of  language  so  gross  that  we  marvel  how 
men  of  common  intellect  or  conscience  can  allow  them- 
selves in  it. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Wesley 
to  Mr.  Asbury,  transcribed  from  the  original.  Its  con- 
tents are  in  all  respects  highly  interesting.  But  it  is 
introduced  here  to  show. that,  though  written  so  recently 
after  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  at  a  period  when  Mr.  Wesley  could  not  but  have 
known  that  event,  it  does  not  contain  one  syllable  of 
censure  or  of  disapprobation.     It  is  dated, 

"  Bristol,  Sept.  30,  1785. 

"  My  Dear  Brother, — It  gives  me  pleasure  to  hear 
that  God  prospers  your  labours  even  in  the  barren  soil 
of  South  Carolina.  Near  fifty  years  ago  I  preached  in 
the  church  at  Charleston,  and  in  a  few  other  places ; 
and  deep  attention  sat  on  every  face.  But  I  am  afraid 
few  received  any  lasting  impressions. 

"  At  the  next  conference  it  will  be  worth  your  while 


122         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

to  consider  deeply  whether  any  preacher  should  stay  in 
one  place  three  years  together.  I  startle  at  this.  It  is 
a  vehement  alteration  in  the  Methodist  discipline.  We 
have  no  such  custom  in  England,  Scotland,  or  Ireland. 

"  I  myself  may  perhaps  have  as  much  variety  of  matter 
as  many  of  our  preachers.  Yet  I  am  well  assured, 
were  I  to  preach  three  years  together  in  one  place,  both 
the  people  and  myself  would  grow  as  dead  as  stones. 
Indeed  this  is  quite  contrary  to  the  whole  economy  of 
Methodism ;  God  has  always  wrought  among  us  by  a 
constant  change  of  preachers. 

"  Newly  awakened  people  should,  if  it  were  possible, 
be  plentifully  supplied  with  books.  Hereby  the  awaken- 
ing is  both  continued  and  increased. 

"  In  two  or  three  days  I  expect  to  be  in  London.  I 
will  then  talk  with  Mr.  Atlay  on  the  head.  Be  all  in 
earnest  for  God. 

"  I  am  your  affectionate  friend  and  brother, 
"  J.  Wesley." 


Section  XV. — Leaving  Mr.  Wesleifs  name  off  the 
Minutes. 

The  meaning  of  this  phrase  seems  not  to  have  been 
correctly  understood.  In  some  cases  Mr.  M'Caine  as- 
serts that  Mr.  Wesley's  name  was  left  off  in  1785 ;  and 
then  expresses  surprise  that  he,  notwithstanding,  by 
his  letter  of  September,  1786,  attempted  "  to  exercise 
his  authority  as  formerly,  by  desiring  that  Mr.  What- 
coat  should  be  appointed  a  superintendent."  In  other 
places  he  represents  this  event  as  having  taken  place  in 
1787.  The  confusion  was  in  Mr.  M'Caine's  own  mind, 
not  in  the  subject.     This  is  easily  explained. 


A.  DEFENCE  OP  OUR  FATHERS.         123 

In  the  Minutes  of  the  conference  of  1784,  in  answer 
to  the  second  question  it  was  said,  "  During  the  Hfe  of 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Wesley,  we  acknowledge  ourselves  his 
sons  in  the  gospel,  ready  in  matters  belonging  to  church 
government  to  obey  his  commands."  This  minute  re- 
mained unaltered  till  the  conference  of  1787.  At  that 
conference  it  was  resolved  to  omit  it.  This  act,  and 
this  only,  is  what  is  properly  meant  by  leaving  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's name  off  the  Minutes. 

With  regard  to  that  minute,  the  conference  of  1787 
did  not  consider  it  in  the  light  of  a  contract  with  Mr. 
Wesley.  It  had  no  such  character.  It  was  a  mere 
voluntary  declaration  on  the  part  of  the  conference  of 
1784,  and  one  which  had  neither  been  required  of  them, 
nor  was  unalterably  binding  on  their  successors  ;  w^ho 
were  as  free  to  judge  and  act  for  themselves  as  their 
predecessors  had  been.  If  there  was  any  thing  impro- 
per in  that  business,  Mr.  Lee  contends,  it  was  in  origi- 
nally adopting  the  minute,  and  not  in  rescinding  it. 
History,  p.  127. 

The  declaration  of  the  conference  of  1784  was,  that 
"  during  the  hfe  of  Mr.  Wesley  they  were  ready  to  obey 
his  commands  in  matters  belonging  to  church  government. 
That  it  was  not  understood  or  intended,  however,  from 
the  commencement  of  our  organization  as  a  church,  that 
Mr.  Wesley  should  thereafter  personally  appoint  our 
church  officers,  is  susceptible  of  clear  proof  In  the  form 
for  "  the  ordination  of  superintendents,"  prepared  for 
us  by  Mr.  Wesley  himself,  and  "  recommended"  to  us 
in  the  prayer  book  of  1784,  are  these  words :  "  After 
the  gospel  and  the  sermon  are  ended,  the  elected  person 
shall  be  presented  by  two  elders  unto  the  superintend- 
ent, saying,"  &c.  Again,  in  the  same  form:  "Then 
the  superintendent  and  elders  present  shall  lay  their 
hands  upon  the  head  of  the  elected  person  kneeling  be- 
fore them,"  &c.  These  passages  indisputably  prove, 
that  Mr.  Wesley  himself  at  that  time  contemplated  the 


124         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

future  election  of  our  superintendents,  and  not  that  they 
were  to  be  appointed  by  him. 

On  this  principle  Mr.  Asbury  acted  from  the  com- 
mencement. When  the  design  of  organizing  the  Me- 
thodists in  America  into  an  independent  episcopal 
church  was  first  opened  to  the  preachers  then  present, 
by  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Whatcoat,  at  their  first  meeting  at 
Barratt's  chapel,  in  Delaware,  on  the  15th  of  November, 
1784,  Mr.  Asbury  frankly  declared,  "  If  the  preachers 
unanimously  choose  me,  I  shall  not  act  in  the  capacity 
I  have  hitherto  done  by  Mr.  Wesley's  appointment." 
Joifrnal,  vol.  i,  p.  376.  This  frank  avowal,  at  that  early 
period,  is  a  full  refutation  of  Mr.  M'Caine's  unworthy 
insinuation  that  Mr.  Asbury  hypocritically  pretended 
subjection  to  Mr.  Wesley's  authority  "  at  that  juncture," 
lest  by  doing  otherwise  he  should  dash  from  his  lips 
the  cup  of  sweets.  As  soon  as  the  plan  was  opened 
to  him,  and  not  long  before  his  election  or  ordination,  he 
explicitly  stated  that  if  placed  in  the  office  of  superin- 
tendent it  must  be  by  the  voice  of  his  brethren.  When 
the  conference  was  convened  he  made  the  same  decla- 
ration, and  declined  to  serve  on  any  other  ground.  Nor 
was  he  ordained,  nor  was  Dr.  Coke  received  as  a  super- 
intendent, until  they  were  severally  elected  by  the 
conference.  This  proves  that  the  conference  concurred 
in  the  same  view.  It  is  demonstrable  that  the  confer- 
ence of  1784  could  not  have  viewed  this  subject  in  any 
other  light ;  for  in  the  same  Minutes,  in  answer  to  the 
twenty-sixth  question,  they  expressly  said,  "  N.  B.  No 
person  shall  be  ordained  a  superintendent,  elder,  or  dea- 
con, without  the  consent  of  a  majority  of  the  conference^ 
In  the  case  of  Mr.  Whatcoat,  Mr.  Lee  says,  "  Most  of 
the  preachers  objected,  and  would  not  consent."  History, 
p.  126.  This  they  certainly  had  a  right  to  do,  agreeably 
to  the  original  Minutes. 

It  will  be  observed  farther,  that  the  design  of  organ- 
izing the  Methodists  in  America  into  "  an  independent 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         125 

episcopal  church,"  was  first  opened  by  Dr.  Coke  to  Mr. 
Asbury  and  the  preachers  present,  in  the  presence  of 
Richard  Whatcoat.  Now  there  is  every  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  Mr.  Whatcoat  had  a  correct  acquaintance 
with  the  intentions  of  Mr.  Wesley :  and  when  Dr.  Coke 
stated  the  design  of  forming  the  Methodists  in  America 
into  an  "  independent  episcopal  church,"  if  Mr.  What- 
coat knew  that  this  was  contrary  to  Mr.  Wesley's  inten- 
tions, it  was  his  duty  to  express  it.  The  universally 
admitted  character  of  Mr.  Wliatcoat  is  a  sufficient  guaran- 
tee that  he  would  have  done  so.  A  man  of  greater  sim- 
plicity, guilelessness,  and  honesty,  probably  never  lived. 
Mr.  M'Caine  must  therefore  involve  Mr.  Whatcoat  also 
in  the  guilt  of  this  knavish  conspiracy,  or  else  set  him 
down  as  an  ignorant  tool.  Yet  Mr.  Wesley,  who  knew 
him  well,  thought  him  not  unworthy,  two  years  after,  to 
be  recommended  for  the  office  of  general  superintend- 
ent. Such  are  the  consequences  continually  involved  in 
Mr.  M'Caine's  hypotheses. 

In  a  letter  dated  "  London,  September  6,  1786,"  ad- 
dressed to  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Wesley  says, 

"  Dear  Sir, — ^I  desire  that  you  would  appoint  a 
General  Conference  of  all  our  preachers  in  the  United 
States,  to  meet  at  Baltimore  on  May  the  first,  1787. 
And  that  Mr.  Richard  Whatcoat  may  be  appointed  su- 
perintendent with  Mr.  Francis  Asbury." 

The  calling  of  this  conference,  by  Dr.  Coke,  by  the 
direction  of  Mr.  Wesley,  at  a  time  and  place  unauthor- 
ized by  any  previous  conference,  was  the  first  ground 
of  dissatisfaction  in  the  conference  of  1787.  The  time 
fixed  for  it  being  much  earlier  than  had  been  antici- 
pated, subjected  many  of  the  preachers  to  considerable 
inconvenience  ;  and  some,  in  consequence  of  the  de- 
rangement of  their  plans,  did  not  attend  at  all.  Among 
these  were  Ezekiel  Cooper,  and  John  M'Claskey,  who 
then  travelled  in  Jersey.  This  proceeding  was  one  of 
the  chief  causes  which  led  to  the  signing  of  the  instru- 


1S6         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

ment  given  by  Dr.  Coke  at  that  conference,  in  which  he 
promised  not  to  exercise  any  government  in  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  when  absent  from  the  United  States- 
The  subsequent  part  of  Mr.  Wesley's  note  does  not 
seem  to  us  at  present,  however  it  may  have  been  in- 
tended, as  an  absolute  appointment  of  Mr.  Whatcoat. 
In  one  place,  p.  43,  Mr.  M'Caine  himself  says,  "  It  will 
be  seen  then  that  he  does  not  '  appoint'  Mr.  Whatcoat 
a  superintendent,  but  simply  expresses  a  '  desire'  that 
he  'may  be  appointed'  one."  Yet  only  one  page  before 
he  expressly  says,  "  Mr.  Wesley  accordingly  appointed 
Mr.^Whatcoat."  So  that,  according  to  Mr.  M'Caine, 
we  have  both  assertions, — he  did  appoint  him,  and  he 
did  not.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  Dr.  Coke  con- 
tended that  this  letter  of  Mr.  Wesley's  was  an  appoint- 
ment of  Mr.  Whatcoat ;  and  that  the  conference  were 
therefore  "  obliged"  to  receive  him,  in  consequence  of 
the  minute  of  1784  to  obey  Mr.  Wesley's  commands  in 
matters  relating  to  church  government.  And  had  the 
conference  considered  themselves  obhged,  as  Dr.  Coke 
contended,  to  receive  Mr.  Whatcoat  merely  by  virtue  of 
Mr.  Wesley's  authority,  they  might  have  been  equally  re- 
quired by  the  same  authority  to  submit  to  the  recall  of 
Mr.  Asbury.  Considering  it  therefore  as  their  right,  agree- 
ably to  the  form  of  ordination,  and  to  the  rule  adopted 
by  the  conference  of  1784,  to  elect  their  superintend- 
ents ;  and  finding  that  the  minute  respecting  obeying 
Mr.  Wesley  in  matters  belonging  to  church  government, 
was  likely  to  become  a  source  of  contention,  and  to  be 
construed  in  a  sense  which  the  conference  of  1784 
never  intended,  so  as  to  deprive  them  of  that  right,  they 
resolved  to  rescind  it;  and  accordingly  did  so.  But 
this  act  did  not  in  any  degree  proceed  from  want  of  per- 
sonal respect  or  regard  for  Mr.  Wesley.  At  the  very 
same  time  they  addressed  an  affectionate  letter  to  him, 
expressing  their  attachment,  and  their  desire,  if  it  were 
practicable,  that  he  could  visit  them,  and  become  per- 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         127 

sonally  acquainted  with  their  affairs.  For  they  did  not 
beheve  it  possible  for  him,  at  the  distance  of  three  thou- 
sand miles,  to  judge  as  correctly  respecting  their  super- 
intendents as  they  could  who  were  on  the  spot.  They 
did  believe  also  that  unjust  representations  of  Mr.  As- 
bury  had  been  made  to  him,  by  some  person  or  persons 
unfriendly  to  Mr.  Asbury ;  and  that,  if  they  accepted  of 
Mr.  Whatcoat  merely  by  his  authority,  in  these  circum- 
stances, it  might  probably  lead  to  Mr.  Asbury's  recalL 
They  therefore  declined  to  receive  Mr.  Whatcoat  But 
it  was  the  conference  that  declined,  as  Mr.  Lee  states, 
and  not  Mr.  Asbury,  as  we  shall  now  farther  prove. ^ 

As  Mr.  M'Caine,  on  this  subject,  has  only  revived 
and  new  dressed  the  old  charges  of  Mr.  O'Kelly, — to 
refute  them  we  have  only  to  adopt  the  former  refutation 
of  Mr.  O'Kelly  by  Mr.  Snethen. 

Mr.  O'Kelly  had  asserted,  "  Francis  was  opposed  to 
a  joint  superintendent."  —  "For  a  refutation  of  this 
charge,"  says  Mr.  Snethen,  "see  the  following  testi- 
mony."— The  certificates  of  Dr.  Coke,  of  Philip  Bruce, 
and  of  Mr.  Whatcoat  himself 

"  When  Thomas  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  met  in  Charles- 
ton, Thomas  Coke  informed  him  that  Mr.  Wesley  had 

*  One  of  Mr.  M'Caine's  unnamed  authorities  says,  "  About  this  time  there 
was  a  great  rumour  in  London  concerning  the  strides  taken  by  Mr.  Asbury 
for  the  extent  of  power,  and  one  elderly  gentleman,  the  Rev.  T.  R.,"  [Thomas 
Rankin,  we  presume,]  "  said  it  would  be  right  to  recall  a  man  of  that  ambitious 
turn.  Mrs.  Asbunf  [the  mother  of  Bishop  Asbury]  "  heard  of  this  saying, 
and  intimated  to  her  son  she  hoped  to  see  him  shortly  in  England." 

Mr.  Snethen  says  also,  "Mr.  Asbury  was  the  only  English  preacher  that 
adopted  the  American  country,  and  was  determined  to  stand  or  fall  with  the 
cause  of  independence  ;  all  the  rest  returned,  and  one  at  least  was  not  very 
well  affected  toward  him  :  and  Mr.  Asbury's  intentions  were  questioned,  and 
Mr.  Wesley  was  advised  to  keep  a  watchful  eye  over  the  great  water." 
Answer  to  J.  O'Kelly's  Vindication,  page  18. 

It  appears,  too,  from  Mr.  Snethen's  account,  that  a  preacher  who  was 
expelled  in  1792  had  been  misrepresenting  Mr.  Asbury,  and  imposing  on 
Mr.  Wesley:  Through  his  aid  Mr.  Hammett  endeavoured  to  stab  the  cha- 
racter of  Mr.  Asbury.  Mr.  O'Kelly  used  the  materials  which  they  had  pre- 
pared to  his  hand ;  and  Mr.  M'Caine  has  availed  himself  of  them  all,  with 
the  addition  of  Mr.  Kewley's  productions,  but  without  naming  his  authorities. 


128         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

appointed  Richard  Whatcoat  as  a  joint  superintendent, 
and  Mr.  Asbury  acquiesced  in  the  appointment,  as  did 
the  Charleston  conference  when  it  was  laid  before  them. 
Thomas  Coke  proposed  the  appointment  to  the  Virginia 
conference,  and,  to  his  great  pain  and  disappointment, 
James  O'Kelly  most  strenuously  opposed  it ;  but  con- 
sented that  the  Baltimore  conference  might  decide  it, 
upon  condition  that  the  Virginia  conference  might  send 
a  deputy  to  explain  their  sentiments. 

"  Jan.  7,  1796.         (Signed)  Thomas  Coke." 

"J  perfectly  remember  that  Mr.  O'Kelly  opposed  the 
appointment  of  Mr.  Whatcoat;  and  that  Mr.  Asbury 
said  enough  to  him  and  me  to  convince  us  that  he  was 
not  opposed  to  the  appointment. 

"Norfolk,  Nov.  30,1796.  (Signed)   Philip  Bruce." 

"  Mr.  Asbury  was  not  opposed  to  my  being  joint  super- 
intendent with  himself.  After  receiving  Mr.  V^esley's 
letter  he  wrote  to  me  from  Charleston  upon  the  subject. 
As  I  have  not  the  letter  by  me  at  present,  I  cannot  give 
the  contents  verbatim :  but,  as  well  as  I  recollect,  the 
conclusion  was :  '  And  if  so,  you  must  meet  me  at  the 
Warm  Springs,  and  we  will  make  out  a  plan  for  your 
route  through  the  continent. 

''  (Signed)  R.  Whatcoat."* 

"  How  could  he"  (Mr.  O'Kelly)  says  Mr.  Snethen, 
"  publish  such  an  idea  ?  Had  he  forgotten  the  conversa- 
tion which  passed  between  himself  and  Mr.  Asbury,  at 
Dick's  Ferry,  upon  Dan  River  ?  in  which  Mr.  Asbury 
told  him  it  would  be  best  to  accept  Richard  Whatcoat." 


*  Let  the  reader  compare  these  certificates  with  the  letter  of  the  3 1st  of 
Oct.,  1789,  which  Mr.  M'Caine,  p.  47,  imputes  to  Mr.  Wesley,  in  which  it 
is  stated  that  Mr.  Asbury  "  flatly  refused  to  receive  Mr.  Whatcoat."  From 
this  comparison  it  is  certain,  either  that  Mr.  Wesley  never  wrote  that  letter 
as  it  is  j^iven  to  us ;  or  if  he  did,  that  he  had  been  imposed  on  by  false 
information^ 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         129 

Rev.  N.  Snethen's  Reply  to  James  O'Kelly's  Apology, 
pp.  9,  10. 

We  may  add,  also,  that  Mr.  Snethen  has  as  triumph- 
antly vindicated  Mr.  Asbury  from  ''  the  smallest  blame" 
in  relation  to  the  leaving  of  Mr.  Wesley's  name  off  the 
Minutes.  Mr.  O 'Kelly  had  asserted  that  "  Francis  took 
with  him  a  few  chosen  men,  and  in  a  clandestine 
manner  expelled  John,  whose  surname  was  Wesley, 
from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church."  Mr.  Snethen 
rephes, 

"  Surely  an  author  that  w^ill  publish  such  a  slander 
against  an  innocent  man,  is  but  little  better  than  he  who 
would  be  guilty  of  the  charge.  Mr.  Asbury  has  given 
the  compiler  a  particular  detail  of  every  circumstance 
relative  to  himself,  that  had  the  most  remote  relation  to 
the  leaving  Mr.  Wesley's  name  out  of  the  American 
Minutes  ;  which  makes  it  appear  that  Mr.  Ashury  was 
not  deserving  of  the  smallest  blame  in  the  whole  business ; 
and  the  compiler,"  Mr.  Snethen,  "  is  certain  that  Dr.  Coke 
and  all  the  preachers  then  living,  7vho  were  at  that  time 
members  of  the  conference,  were  perfectly  satisfied  that 
Mr.  Asbury  was  entirely  innocent  of  the  charge."  Reply 
to  Mr.  O'Kelly's  Apology,  p.  12.* 

On  the  whole,  viewing  this  subject  with  a  candid  and 
affectionate  reverence  for  all  parties,  we  do  not  say  that 
a  gentler  and  more  conciliatory  course  on  the  part  of 
that  conference,  in  relation  to  Mr.  Wesley  personally, 
might  not  have  been,  perhaps,  the  more  excellent  way. 
But  this  is  submitted  with  all  our  added  light,  and  when 

*  Since  writing  the  above  we  have  seen  a  statement  from  Mr.  Snethen  of 
the  circumstances  in  which  his  publications  respecting  Mr.  O'Kelly  were 
compiled. — It  does  not  appear,  however,  to  require  any  alteration  of  what 
we  have  written.  The  facts  and  documents  remain  the  same.  We  are 
well  satisfied  also  that  Mr.  Snethen  would  never,  even  as  a  member  of 
a  committee,  have  published  any  thing  which  he  did  not  himself  believe. 
And  we  are  equally  satisfied  that  he  always  had,  and  still  has,  too  high  an 
opinion  of  Bishop  Asbury's  personal  moral  worth,  to  believe  for  a  moment 
that  he  would  have  furnished  either  documents,  or  any  statement  of  facts, 
even  in  his  own  defence,  which  he  knew  to  be  either  forged  or  false. 

9 


130         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

the  excitements,  the  apprehensions,  and  the  embarrass- 
ments of  that  day  are  wholly  gone.  Yet  we  do  say, 
that  had  we  lived  in  the  days  of  '^  our  fathers,"  it  is 
highly  probable  that  a  majority  of  us  would  have  felt, 
and  judged,  and  acted,  as  a  majority  of  them  did ;  and 
very  doubtful  whether  we,  or  their  censors,  would  have 
done  better. 

At  one  time,  Mr.  Wesley's  name,  to  use  the  common 
phrase,  was  left  off  the  A?nerican  Minutes.  At  another, 
Dr.  Coke's  was  omitted  in  the  English  Minutes.  And 
at  yet  another,  (1778,)  Mr.  Asbury's  name  also  was 
omitted  in  the  American  Minutes.  In  each  case  it  was 
done  from  what  were  then  deemed  prudential  con- 
siderations. With  our  present  lights  we  may  doubt, 
perhaps,  the  real  necessity  of  either  of  them.  Yet  are 
we  prepared  to  assert,  with  confidence,  w-hat  might,  and 
would  have  been  the  effects,  if  these  measures  had  not 
been  adopted  ?^ 

Mr.  M'Caine  is  also  displeased  that,  at  the  death  of 
Mr.  Wesley,  no  account  was  given  of  him  in  the  Ameri- 
can Minutes.  We  wish  this  had  been  otherwise.  But 
if  he  can  believe  that  the  omission  resulted  from  "  con- 


*With  respect  to  the  "rejecting  of  Mr.  Wesley,"  or  leaving  his  name 
off  the  Minutes,  the  following  is  Mr.  Asbury's  statement  : — 

"  I  was  amazed  to  hear  that  my  dear  ajjed  friend,  Benjamin  Evans,  (now 
gone  to  glory,)  was  converted  to  the  new  side  by  being  told  by  J.  O'Kelly 
that  I  had  offended  Mr.  Wesley,  and  that  he  being  about  calling  me  to  ac- 
count, I  cast  him  off  altogether.  But,  quere,  did  not  J.  O'K.  set  aside  the 
appointment  of  Richard  Whatcoat  1  and  did  not  the  conference  in  Baltimore 
strike  that  minute  out  of  our  Discipline  which  was  called  a  rejecting  of  Mr. 
Wesley  ?  and  now  does  J.  O'K.  lay  all  the  blame  on  me.  It  is  true,  I  never 
approved  of  that  binding  minute.  I  did  not  think  it  practical  expediency  to 
obey  Mr.  Wesley,  at  three  thousand  miles'  distance,  in  all  matters  relative 
to  church  government ;  neither  did  Brother  Whatcoat,  nor  several  others. 
At  the  first  General  Conference  I  was  mute  and  modest  when  it  passed,  and 
I  was  mute  when  it  was  expunged.  For  this  Mr.  Wesley  blamed  me,  and 
was  displeased  that  I  did  not  rather  reject  the  whole  connection,  or  leave 
them,  if  they  did  not  comply.  But  I  could  not  give  up  the  connection  so 
easily,  after  labouring  and  suffering  so  many  years  with  and  for  them." 
Journal,  vol.  ii,  p.  270. 

9* 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         131 

tempt''  of  Mr.  Wesley,  we  must  leave  him  to  enjoy  his 
opinion.  The  adoption  of  such  a  sentiment  requires  a 
strong  predisposition  and  desire  to  believe  it.'^ 

The  truth  seems  to  be,  that,  as  the  deaths  of  Ameri- 
can preachers  are  not  mentioned  in  the  British  Minutes, 
so  the  deaths  of  the  European  preachers  are  not  men- 
tioned in  the  American  Minutes ;  although,  in  a  general 
sense,  we  are  all  regarded  as  one  body.  In  the  case  of 
Mr.  Wesley  an  exception  to  this  general  mode  of  pro- 
ceeding might  doubtless  have  been  made  with  great 
propriety.  But  that  not  a  particle  of  any  thing  like 
"  cold  neglect"  or  '•'  contempt"  of  Mr.  Wesley  had  place 
in  the  mind  of  Mr.  Asbury  on  that  occasion,  we  have 
the  explicit  testimony  of  Mr.  Moore.  Even  on  receiving 
from  Mr.  Wesley  the  letter  of  Sept.,  1788,  Mr.  Moore 
says,  "  Mr.  Asbury  lost  none  of  his  veneration  for  his 
father  in  the  gospel,"  Mr.  Wesley :  and  as  a  proof  of 
this  he  cites  the  entry  which  Mr.  Asbury  made  in  his 
journal,  on  the  occasion  of  the  death  "  of  that  dear  man 
of  God ;"  in  which,  after  expressing  himself  in  the  high- 
est terms  of  Mr.  Wesley's  character  and  attainments, 
Mr.  Asbury  adds :  "  I  conclude  his  equal  is  not  to  be 
found  among  all  the  sons  he  hath  brought  up,  nor  his 
superior  among  all  the  sons  of  Adam''  Life  of  Wesley, 
vol.  ii,  p.  286.  With  what  face,  after  this,  can  Mr.  As- 
bury, at  least,  be  involved  in  the  insinuation  of  treating 
the  memory  of  Mr.  Wesley  with  "  cold  neglect,  if  not 
contempt  ?' 

Even  in  the  British  Minutes  the  notice  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's death  was  extremely  short:  for  the  conference 
declared  that  they  found  themselves  "  utterly  inadequate 
to  express  their  ideas  and  feelings  on  that  awful  and 
affecting:  event." 


*  When  the  great  Fletcher  died,  the  account  of  him  in  the  English  Mi- 
nutes was  contained  in  oUe  line  and  a  quarter.  That  line  and  a  quarter, 
however,  from  the  pen  of  Mr.  Wesley,  expressed,  we  confess,  as  much  as 
some  of  our  modern  pages. 


132         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

That  Mr.  Wesley  before  his  death  became  satisfied 
of  the  continued  affection  and  attachment  of  the  Ame- 
rican Methodists,  appears  from  his  correspondence. 

In  a  letter  to  the  Rev.  Ezekiel  Cooper,  written  only 
twenty-nine  days  before  his  death,  after  mentioning  his 
growing  infirmities,  he  says,  "  Probably  I  should  not  be 
able  to  do  so  much,  did  not  many  of  you  assist  me  by 
your  prayers.  See  that  you  never  give  place  to  one 
thought  of  separating  from  your  brethren  in  Europe. 
Lose  no  opportunity  of  declaring  to  all  men  that  the 
Methodists  are  one  people  in  all  the  world,  and  that  it 
is  their  full  determination  so  to  continue, 

'Though  mountains  rise,  and  oceans  roll, 
To  sever  us  in  vain,'  " 

This  proves  that  he  did  not  then  consider  us  as  sepa- 
rated from  himself,  or  from  our  European  brethren. 

The  same  sentiment  has  been  since  officially  avowed 
both  by  the  British  and  American  conferences.  The 
credentials  furnished  by  our  brethren  in  Europe,  either 
to  their  ministers  or  members,  are  recognised  and 
honoured  by  us  here,  as  entitling  them  to  every  privi- 
lege of  our  church.  The  credentials  which  we  furnish 
are  also  acknowledged  by  them.  And  of  late  years  the 
two  connections  have  mutually  exchanged  delegates,  as 
the  representatives  of  each  other,  in  our  respective  con- 
ferences. Of  this  state  of  unity  and  affection  every 
friend  of  this  great  work  will  cordially  say — May  it  be 
perpetual.^ 

*  On  the  proceedings  of  the  conference  of  1787,  Dr.  Coke  in  his  Journal 
of  that  date  remarks, — 

"  Never  surely  was  more  external  peace  and  liberty  enjoyed  by  the  church 
of  God,  or  any  part  of  it,  since  the  fall  of  man,  than  we  enjoy  in  America  : 
and  every  thing  seems  to  be  falling  before  the  power  of  the  word.  What 
then  remained  for  the  infernal  serpent,  but  to  sow  the  seeds  of  schism  and 
division  among  ourselves'?  But,  glory  be  to  God,  yea,  glory  for  ever  be 
ascribed  to  his  sacred  name,  the  devil  was  completely  defeated.  Our  pain- 
ful contests,  I  trust,  have  produced  the  most  indissoluble  union  between  my 
brethren  and  me.  We  thoroughly  perceived  the  mutual  parity  of  each 
other's  intentions  in  respect  to  the  points  in  dispute.     We  mutually  yielded, 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         133 


Section  XVI. — Mr.  M'Caine's  Arithmetical 
Calculations. 

Mr.  M'Caine  states,  page  65,  that  the  "appeal" 
proposed  by  Mr.  O'Kelly  in  the  conference  of  1792 
''  was  the  origin  and  cause  of  a  secession  from  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church,  of  such  great  extent,  that  in 
less  than  five  years  the  Minutes  of  Conference  exhibit 
a  decrease  of  20,000  members." 

Now  how  does  he  make  this  out  'I  The  conference 
at  which  Mr.  O'Kelly  proposed  his  appeal  was  in  No- 
vember, 1792.  The  first  return  of  numbers  thereafter 
was  in  1793.  The  total  number  of  members,  white  and 
coloured,  on  the  face  of  the  Minutes  then  was  67,643. 
In  1798,  five  years  afterward,  the  total  number  was 
60,169  ;  making  a  decrease  of  only  7,474.  Or,  if  we 
take  it  in  1797,  four  years  from  1793,  the  total  number 
then  was  58,663 ;  making  a  decrease  of  8,980.  If  we 
make  the  calculations  from  1792,  the  decrease,  accord- 
ing to  the  Minutes,  in  1796  was  9,316;  and  in  1797  it 
was  7,317. 

But  did  not  Mr.  M'Caine,  in  order  to  show  so  large  a 
decrease,  go  back  to  1791  ?  If  he  did,  why  did  he  do 
so  ?  In  1792  the  aggregate  numbers  on  the  face  of  the 
Minutes  was  65,980  ;  and  it  was  subsequently  to  that 
return  that  the  General  Conference  of  1792,  at  which 
Mr.  O'Kelly  proposed  his  appeal,  was  held.  Of  course, 
the  numbers  as  returned  for  1791  could  not  justly  be 
made  the  starting  place  for  this  calculation.  Besides, 
from  1791  to  1792  there  was  in  reality  an  increase  of 
more  than  2,000  members ;  which  farther  shows  the 

and  mutually  submitted ;  and  the  silken  cords  of  love  and  affection  were  tied 
to  the  horns  of  the  altar  for  ever  and  ever." 

We  shall  be  most  truly  rejoiced  to  find  that  as  much  purity  of  intention, 
and  sincerity  of  affection,  and  of  "  the  wisdom  that  is  from  above,"  exists 
among  us  at  the  present  day,  as  actuated  the  hearts  of  our  excellent 
"  fathers." 


13'4  A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR   FATHERS. 

impropriety  of  beginning  the  calculation  of  a  decrease 
from  1791.  It  happens,  however,  that  in  1791  the  face 
of  the  Minutes  exhibits  so  very  large  an  aggregate  that 
it  suited  Mr.  M'Caine's  purpose  excellently  well  to  begin 
his  calculation  from  that  date.  But  in  that  ag-orreofate, 
as  exhibited  by  the  Minutes,  did  Mr.  M'Caine  discover  no 
mistake  1  If  he  did  not,  his  examination  was  extremely 
superficial.  If  he  did,  it  was  a  great  want  of  candour, 
and  great  injustice  to  his  readers,  not  to  state  it.  On 
either  ground  we  submit  whether  this  specimen  affords 
us  any  very  great  encouragement  to  rely  implicitly 
on  Mr.  M'Caine's  diligent  investigation,  and  accurate 
report  of  documents?  Whoever  will  examine  the  Mi- 
nutes of  1791  will  find  that  there  is  an  error  in  the 
aggregate  of  the  numbers  stated  for  that  year  of  between 
twelve  and  thirteen  thoicsand  too  many.  The  whole  num- 
ber, of  both  whites  and  coloured,  is  first  given  at  the 
foot  of  the  column  headed  "  Whites  ;"  and  then  the  num- 
ber of  the  coloured  is  given  besides,  which  makes  an 
error  equal  to  the  whole  number  of  the  coloured  mem- 
bers, which  must  be  deducted  from  the  total  aggregate 
of  the  two  columns,  to  ascertain  the  true  aggregate. 

In  this  calculation  Mr.  M'Caine  is  the  more  inexcusa- 
ble, as  he  had  before  him  Mr.  Lee's  History,  in  which 
the  increase  and  decrease  are  regularly  stated  from  year 
to  year.  This  might  have  led  any  careful  investigator 
to  an  easy  discovery  of  the  error  in  the  Minutes.  In 
1794  the  first  decrease  took  place  that  had  occurred  for 
fourteen  years.  The  largest  decrease  was  in  1795.  In 
1796  there  was  still  a  decrease.  But  in  1797  there 
was  again  an  increase,  nearly  2,000  having  been  added 
to  the  numbers. 

In  the  simple  addition  and  subtraction  of  figures,  we 
should  have  supposed  that  Mr.  M'Caine  would  have 
been  peculiarly  accurate.  And  if  he  has  so  palpably 
erred  in  a  case  so  plain,  and  so  perfectly  susceptible  of 
investigation  and  correction,  it  can  be  no  want  of  charity 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         135 

to  believe  that  he  may  have  equally  erred  in  matters 
much  more  difficult  and  intricate,  in  which  he  has  be- 
wildered himself  in  the  mazes  of  "  mystery,"  where  the 
certain  science  of  mathematics  could  afford  no  aid. 

But  we  have  a  few  other  cases  of  arithmetical  logic 
to  propose  in  bar  of  Mr.  M'Caine's.  If  the  "  decrease" 
stated  by  Mr.  M'Caine,  and  the  "  secessions  since  that 
period  in  different  parts  of  the  United  States,"  be  a  fair 
argument  against  our  "  episcopal  form  of  church  govern- 
ment," are  the  increase  and  the  accessions  since  no  argu- 
ment in  its  favour  ?  We  put  then  the  following  cases 
for  Mr.  M'Caine's  calculation. 

In  the  year  1784,  when  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  was  first  organized,  the  number  of  members  in 
our  societies  was  14,988.  In  forty-three  years,  under 
our  episcopal  form  of  church  government,  the  increase 
has  been  367,009 ;  the  total  number  of  members  now 
being  381,997. 

In  less  than  five  years,  at  one  period,  Mr.  M'Caine 
says  there  was  a  decrease  of  20,000  members ;  though 
the  true  decrease,  during  that  period,  was  not  half  that 
number.  In  07ie  year  (1827)  we  have  had  an  i?icrease 
of  21,197. 

The  secession  which  caused  the  decrease  which  Mr. 
M'Caine  names,  soon  came  to  naught :  and  scarcely  a 
wreck  or  a  vestige  of  it  now  remains  ;  while  Episcopal 
Methodism,  from  which  that  secession  drew  off,  has 
been  graciously  and  divinely  prospered,  to  an  extent 
even  beyond  the  anticipations  of  its  most  sanguine  and 
devoted  friends.  Now  the  answer  required  is,  taking 
all  these  cases  together,  what  is  the  sum  of  the  arith- 
metical argument ; — on  which  side  is  the  true  balance  ; 
and  to  what  amount  ? 


136         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

Section  XVII. — The  Address  to  Geyieral  Washington. 

Of  all  Mr.  M'Caine's  book,  those  parts  which  respect 
the  address  to  General  Washington  are  the  most  extra- 
ordinary. "  It  is  evident,"  he  asserts,  p.  46,  "  that  the 
date  of  this  address  was  altered."  That  he  does  not  in 
direct  terms  charge  Mr.  Asbury  with  the  alteration,  and 
for  the  base  purposes  named,  as  we  have  before  shown, 
cannot  excuse  him.  The  implication  is  too  clear  to  be 
mistaken.  If  a  false  date  were  forged,  and  imposed  on 
the  ^public,  Mr.  Asbury  could  not  have  been  innocent. 
He  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  the  truth  in  the 
case,  nor  of  his  duty  respecting  it.  We  have  therefore 
examined  this  subject  minutely ;  and  the  result  has 
amply  repaid  our  pains."^ 

Mr.  Drew  does  not  give  the  address  itself ;  nor  state 
expressly  what  its  precise  date  was.  He  seems,  indeed, 
to  have  been  left  in  peculiar  embarrassment  with  regard 
to  dates,  in  consequence  of  the  death  of  Dr.  Coke  at 
sea,  before  he  had  arranged  his  papers  in  chronological 
order,  for  his  anticipated  biographer,  as  he  had  intended. 
This  is  intimated  in  Mr.  Drew's  dedication.  Admitting, 
however,  from  the  course  of  his  narrative,  that  it  was 

*  Mr.  M'Caine  asserts  also,  pp.  37  and  38,  that  the  Minutes  of  Confer- 
ence '■'■were  altered,''^ — "to  make  them  quadrate  with  subsequent  proceed- 
ings." In  proof  of  this,  and  showing  the  application  to  Mr.  Asbury,  he 
rfefers  to  Lee's  History.  Now  Mr.  Lee  says,  "  In  the  course  of  this  year" 
[1787]  "  Mr.  Asbury  reprinted  the  General  Minutes,  but  in  a  different  form 
from  what  they  were  before,"  p.  127.  The  Minutes  had  been  printed  before 
in  one  general  body  of  consecutive  questions  and  answers.  Mr.  Asbury 
"  methodized  and  arranged  them  under  proper  heads."  So  also  Mr.  Lee 
says  in  another  place,  p.  68,  "  The  form  of  the  Annual  Minutes  was  changed 
this  year"  [1779]  "  in  a  few  points  ;  and  the  first  question  stands  thus,  '  Who 
are  admitted  on  trial  V  The  first  question  used  to  be,  '  Who  are  admitted 
into  connection'?'  "  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  Mr.  Lee  had  reference 
simply  to  \he.  form  in  which  the  Minutes  were  methodized  and  printed.  And 
has  not  their  form  been  repeatedly  altered  since  i  Has  it  not  been  altered, 
and,  as  some  think,  improved,  several  times  within  the  last  few  years  ■?  If 
this  be  deemed  any  crime,  those  considered  guilty  would  be  much  obliged 
if  the  accusation  may  be  made  in  their  lifetime,  that  they  may  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  answer  for  themselves. 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         137 

his  impression  that  the  address  was  presented  in  1785, 
this  mistake  can  be  much  more  readily  excused  in  Mr. 
Drew  than  in  Mr.  M'Caine.  Mr.  Drew  was  a  foreigner, 
writing  in  a  foreign  country.  Mr.  M'Caine  was  here  on 
the  spot,  writing  in  reference  to  prominent  and  well- 
known  events  in  our  history,  and  where  the  most  ample 
and  accurate  sources  of  information  were  perfectly  open 
to  him.  The  two  dates,  1785  and  1789,  were  hoth  before 
him.  Both  were  subjected  to  his  deliberate  investiga- 
tion. He  cJiose  that  of  1785  ;  and  went  so  far  as  to 
charge  that  of  1789  with  being  an  "  altered"  date,  and 
consequently  forged.  Nothing  could  be  more  delibe- 
rate, and  at  the  same  time  more  grossly  erroneous.  Any 
former  publisher  might  have  overlooked  an  error  in  the 
narrative,  as  a  court  in  the  ordinary  routine  of  business, 
without  investigation  or  argument,  or  having  the  atten- 
tion directed  to  the  points  of  a  case.  But  Mr.  M'Caine's 
error  is  that  of  a  court  solemnly  deliberating,  hearing 
the  arguments  of  counsel,  taking  time  to  advise,  and 
then  pronouncing  a  most  glaringly  unfounded  and  inju- 
rious decision,  against  all  evidence  and  reason,  and  all 
justice  and  truth. 

Mr.  M'Caine  repeatedly  states  that  the  address  was 
made  to  General  Washington,  "  President  of  the  Ame- 
rican congress."  He  does  this  not  only  when  quoting 
Mr.  Drew,  but  when  he  has  no  reference  to  Mr.  Drew. 
See  particularly  page  62.  Now  did  he  not  know,  or 
ought  he  not  to  have  known,  that  General  Washington 
never  was  president  of  the  American  congress  ?  and  that 
in  1785  he  was  in  no  official  situation  whatever,  but  a 
mere  private  citizen  attending  to  his  farms.  In  fact 
Washington  was  a  private  citizen  during  the  whole 
period  from  the  resignation  of  his  command  of  the  Ame- 
rican armies  in  1783,  till  his  election  to  the  presidency 
in  1789 ;  except  only  during  the  few  months  in  which 
he  was  a  member  and  president  of  the  convention  for 
the  formation  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States, 


138         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

in  1787.  These  facts  and  dates  are  contained  in  our 
common  school  looks. 

Mr.  M'Caine,  however,  did  know  that  Washington, 
was  not  president  of  the  United  States  till  after  the  adop- 
tion of  the  constitution  in  1788.  This  he  states,  p.  46. 
Why  then,  in  the  name  of  consistency,  did  he  still  insist 
that  the  true  date  of  the  address  was  in  1785?  Do  not 
both  the  address  and  the  answer  contain  perfect  inter- 
nal evidence  that  their  proper  date  must  have  been  after 
the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  and  the  election  of 
General  Washington  to  the  presidency  ?  Unless  we 
adrmt  this,  we  must  allege  a  forgery  not  only  in  the 
date,  but  in  the  body  and  matter  both  of  the  address  and 
answer.     The  address  commences  thus  : — 

"  To  the  President  of  the  United  States^  It  then  pro- 
ceeds to  express  the  congratulations  of  the  bishops  on 
the  general's  "  appointment  to  the  preside^itship  of  these 
States."  And  in  the  ensuing  paragraph,  their  most 
grateful  satisfaction  at  his  course  respecting  "  the  most 
excellent  constitution  of  these  States." 

The  president  in  his  reply  returns  his  thanks  for  their 
demonstrations  of  affection,  and  expressions  of  joy  ''  on 
his  late  appointment."  Now  can  any  one  tell  what 
"  late  appointment"  General  Washington  had  received 
in  1785  1  or  how  any  sense  can  be  made  out  of  this 
whole  business,  if  its  date  be  fixed  at  any  time  anterior 
to  1789? 

But  we  will  not  detain  the  reader  longer  with  reason- 
ing on  the  subject,  though  our  reasoning  alone  would 
be  conclusive.  We  will  present  him  with  the  evidence 
of  documents  which  shall  put  this  matter  to  rest.  The 
following  is  an 

Extract  of  a  Letter  from  the  Rev.  Thomas  Morrell, 
to  the  Rev.  Ezekiel  Cooper,  dated,  "  Elizabethtown, 
N.  J.,  Aug.  26,  1827." 

"  With  regard  to  the  information  you  request  concern- 
ing the  address  to  General  Washington,  I  can  furnish 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         139 

you  with  every  material  circumstance  respecting  it, 
having  acted  as  a  sub-agent  in  the  transaction,  and 
havino-  a  distinct  recollection  of  the  whole  business. 
The  history  of  it  is,  That  Mr.  x^sbury,  hi  the  New-York 
conference  in  1789,  offered  for  the  consideration  of  the 
conference  the  following  proposal : — Whether  it  would 
not  be  proper  for  us,  as  a  church,  to  present  a  congra- 
tulatory address  to  General  Washington,  who  had  been 
lately  inaugurated  president  of  the  United  States,  in 
which  should  be  embodied  our  approbation  of  the  con- 
stitution, and  professing  our  allegiance  to  the  govern- 
ment. The  conference  unanimously  approved,  and 
warmly  recommended  the  measure  ;  and  appointed  the 
two  bishops,  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  to  draw  up  the 
address.  It  was  finished  that  day,  and  read  to  the  con- 
ference, who  evinced  great  satisfaction  in  its  recital. 
Brother  Dickens  and  myself  were  delegated  to  wait  on 
the  president  with  a  copy  of  the  address,  and  request 
him  to  appoint  a  day  and  hour  when  he  would  receive 
the  bishops,  one  of  whom  was  to  read  it  to  him,  and 
receive  his  answer.  It  was  concluded  that  although 
Dr.  Coke  was  the  senior  bishop,  yet  not  being  an  Ame- 
rican citizen,  there  would  be  an  impropriety  in  his  pre- 
senting and  reading  the  address  ;  the  duty  devolved  of 
course  on  Bishop  Asbury.  Mr.  Dickens  and  myself 
waited  on  the  general;  and  as  I  had  some  personal 
acquaintance  with  him,  I  was  desired  to  present  him 
with  the  copy,  and  request  his  reception  of  the  ori- 
ginal by  the  hands  of  the  bishops.  The  president 
appointed  the  fourth  succeeding  day,  at  twelve  o'clock, 
to  receive  the  bishops.  They  went  at  the  appointed 
hour,  accompanied  by  Brother  Dickens  and  Thomas 
Morrell.  Mr.  Asbury,  with  great  self-possession,  read 
the  address  in  an  impressive  manner.  The  president 
read  his  reply  with  fluency  and  animation.  They  in- 
terchanged their  respective  addresses ;  and,  after  sitting 
a  few  minutes,  we   departed.     The   address  and  the 


140         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

answer,  in  a  few  days  were  inserted  in  the  public  prints  ; 
and  some  of  the  ministers  and  members  of  the  other 
churches  appeared  dissatisfied  that  the  Methodists  should 
take  the  lead.  In  a  few  days  the  other  denominations 
successively  followed  our  example. 

"  The  next  week  a  number  of  questions  were  pub- 
lished, in  the  public  papers,  concerning  Dr.  Coke's  sign- 
ing the  address.  Who  was  he  ?  How  came  he  to  be 
a  bishop  ?  Who  consecrated  him,  &c.,  accompanied 
with  severe  strictures  on  the  impropriety  of  a  British 
subject  signing  an  address  approving  of  the  government 
of  the  United  States ;  charging  him  with  duplicity,  and 
that  he  was  an  enemy  to  the  independence  of  x4.merica ; 
for  they  affirmed  he  had  written,  during  our  revolution- 
ary war,  an  inflammatory  address  to  the  people  of  Great 
Britain,  condemning,  in  bitter  language,  our  efforts  to 
obtain  our  independence  ;  and  other  charges  tending  to 
depreciate  the  doctor's  character,  and  bringing  him  into 
contempt  with  the  people  of  our  country,  ks  I  did  not 
believe  the  assertion  of  the  doctor's  writing  the  address 
above-mentioned,  I  applied  to  a  gentleman  who  was  in 
England  at  the  time,  to  know  the  truth  of  the  charge  ; 
he  assured  me  the  doctor  had  published  no  such  senti- 
ments in  England  during  the  revolutionary  war,  or  at 
any  other  period,  or  he  should  have  certainly  had  some 
knowledge  of  it.  And  this  was  the  fact,  for  the  doctor 
had  written  no  such  thing.  As  there  was  no  other  per- 
son in  New- York,  at  that  time,  in  our  connection,  who 
could  meet  these  charges,  and  satisfactorily  answer 
these  queries,  I  undertook  the  task,  and  in  my  weak 
manner  endeavoured  to  rebut  the  charges  and  answer 
the  questions.  A  second  piece  appeared,  and  a  second 
answer  was  promptly  published.  No  more  was  written 
on  the  subject  in  New-York.  The  doctor  afterward 
gave  me  his  thanks  for  defending  his  character. 

"  Such  are  the  material  circumstances  that  occurred 
concerning  the  address  to  General  Washington,  and  his 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         141 

reply  :  which  you  are  at  hberty  to  make  use  of  in  any 
way  you  think  proper, — and  if  you  judge  it  necessary 
may  put  my  name  to  it. 

"Thomas  Morrell." 

I  certify  that  the  above  is  a  true  extract  of  an  original 
letter  of  the  Rev.  Thomas  Morrell,  addressed  to  me, 
bearing  the  above  date,  and  now  in  my  possession. 

EzEKiEL  Cooper. 

New-York,  September  7,  1827. 

To  this  we  add  the  following  copy  of  a  letter  from  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Sparks,  of  Boston,  to  whom  the  papers  of 
General  Washington  have  been  intrusted,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  such  selections  for  publication  as  he 
shall  deem  proper ;  in  which  important  work  this  gen- 
tleman is  now  engaged.  And  for  this  polite  and  prompt 
reply  to  our  inquiries,  we  here  tender  to  Mr.  Sparks 
our  most  respectful  thanks. 

"  Bosto7i,  Septemler  1,  1827. 

"Dear  Sir, — Your  favour  of  the  26th  ultimo  has 
been  received,  and  I  am  happy  to  be  able  to  furnish 
you  with  the  information  you  desire.  The  '  date^  of 
the  address  presented  by  Bishops  Coke  and  Asbury  to 
General  Washington  is  May  twenty-ninth,  1789.  It  is 
proper  to  inform  you,  however,  that  I  do  not  find  the 
original  paper  on  the  files,  but  take  the  date  as  it  is  re- 
corded in  one  of  the  volumes  of  '  Addresses.'  It  is 
barely  possible  that  there  may  be  a  mistake  in  the 
record,  but  not  at  all  probable. 

"  It  is  not  likely  that  any  address  from  any  quarter 
was  presented  to  Washington  in  1785.  I  have  never 
seen  any  of  that  year.  He  was  then  a  private  man, 
wholly  employed  with  his  farms. 

"  I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully, 

"Your  obedient  servant, 

Mr.  J.  Emory.  "  Jared  Sparks." 


142         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

To  complete  this  investigation,  we  have  examined  the 
newspapers  pubhshed  in  this  city  (New- York)  in  1789, 
of  which  files  are  preserved  in  the  New- York  Library. 
The  address  of  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  was  published 
in  the  Gazette  of  the  United  States,  on  the  3d  of  June, 
1789  ;  and  is  dated  May  29,  of  that  year  ;  exactly  cor- 
responding with  the  date  stated  by  Mr.  Sparks,  from 
the  Washington  records.  The  same  address  may  be 
found  in  the  Arminian  Magazine  for  June,  1789,  pub- 
lished in  Philadelphia  by  John  Dickens.  It  is  there 
dated  May  19,  17S9.  This  seems  either  to  have  been 
a  typographical  error  of  19  for  29  ;  or,  probably,  the 
original  draught  of  an  address  was  prepared  about  the 
19th, — and  this  date,  then  put  to  it,  was  inadvertently 
left  uncorrected  when  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  printer. 
This  difference  of  a  few  days,  however,  cannot  now  be 
of  any  possible  moment,  as  it  is  placed  beyond  all  dis- 
pute, that  the  true  date  of  the  address,  as  presented  to 
Washmgton,  was  May  29,  1789.-^ 

The  visit  of  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  to  General 
Washington,  at  Mount  Vernon,  in  1785,  was  merely  to 
solicit  his  influence  in  favour  of  a  petition  which  they  had 
it  in  contemplation  to  present  to  the  general  assembly 
of  Virginia  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  They  dined  with 
the  general,  and  had  a  personal  mterview  on  the  subject, 
but  made  no  particular  address.  A  circumstantial  ac- 
count of  that  visit,  and  the  politeness  with  which  the 
general  received  them,  may  be  seen  in  Dr.  Coke's 
journal  of  May,  1785.1 

*At  the  British  conference  in  1820  an  address  was  adopted  on  the  oc- 
casion of  the  death  of  George  III.,  and  the  accession  of  George  IV.  to  the 
throne  of  Great  Britain.  The  original  draught  of  that  address  was  pre- 
pared by  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  previously  to  the  conference.  It  was  read  by 
him  and  submitted  to  the  conference  on  the  first  day  of  the  session,  and 
dated  on  that  day,  though  not  finally  acted  on  till  some  days  after,  nor  pre- 
sented till  still  later. 

t  In  the  account  which  Mr.  Drew  gives  of  Dr.  Coke's  and  Mr.  Asbury's 
address  to  General  Washington,  he  states  that  "  various  addresses"  of  other 
denominations  about  the  same  time  found  their  way  into  the  American  news- 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.  143 

Since  writingf  the  above,  we  have  received  a  letter 
from  the  Rev.  Ezekiel  Cooper ;  of  wliich  the  following 
is  an  extract : — 

"  Trenton,  N.  J.,  Oct.  16,  1S27. 
"Rev.  John  Emory, 

"  Dear  Sir, — I  have  a  book,  now  lying  before  me, 
entitled,  '  A  Collection  of  the  Speeches  of  the  President 
of  the  United  States  to  both  Houses  of  Congress  at  the 
opening  of  every  Session,  with  their  Ansivers. — Also,  the 
Addresses  to  the  President,  ivith  his  Ansivers,  from  the 
time  of  his  Election.  Printed  at  Boston,  by  Manning  & 
Loring,  for  Solomon  Cotton,  1796.'  In  which  book,  at 
pages  133,  134,  is  the  address  of  the  bishops  of  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church  to  the  president,  and  his 
answer.  The  address  is  dated  New-York,  May  29, 
1789.  This  agrees  with  the  information  you  have 
from  Mr.  Jared  Sparks,  as  to  the  time  when  the  address 
was  presented. 

*'  It  is  now  to  be  hoped  that  neither  the  author  of  the 
History  and  Mystery  of  Methodist  Episcopacy,  nor  his 
friends  or  advocates,  will  be  so  bold,  I  am  almost  ready 
to  say  so  presumptuous,  as  to  believe  the  reproachful 
or  slanderous  charge  of  altering  the  date  of  the  said 
address,  to  answer  some  unworthy  and  falsely  supposed 
purpose.  For  in  so  doing,  it  will  implicate  Washing- 
ton himself,  who  has  left  it  on  record  among  his  papers, 


papers,  and  across  the  Atlantic ;  among  which,  none  so  much  attracted  the 
attention  of  the  English  Methodists  as  that  which  bore  the  signature  of  Dr. 
Coke  and  .Air.  Asbury. — Life  of  Dr.  Coke,  pp.  147,  148.  Of  these  other 
addresses,  that  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  was  dated  May  26,  1789,  and 
presented  June  5; — of  the  German  Reformed,  June  10,  1789; — of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  dated  August  7,  and  presented  August  19, 
1789.  These  were  all  published  in  the  Gazette  of  the  United  States  of 
that  year.  That  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  was  also  published  in 
the  New- York  Daily  Gazette.  The  president's  answer  to  each  of  them 
bears  no  date ;  except  that  to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  as  published 
in  the  Gazette  of  the  United  States,  is  dated  August  19.  But  as  published 
in  the  New- York  Daily  Gazette  this  also  is  not  dated.  And  we  believe  the 
president  did  not  usually  date  his  answers  to  addresses  at  that  period. 


144         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

that  the  said  address  was  received  by  him  May  29, 
1789.  Also  Mr.  Sparks,  who  is  in  possession  of  Wash- 
ington's papers,  and  testifies,  in  the  communication  to 
you  that  it  there  stands  dated  May  29,  1789.  And  also 
the  compiler  or  editor  of  the  book  before  me,  above-men- 
tioned, in  which  the  address  and  answer  are  published, 
bearing  the  same  date,  May  29,  1789.  Surely  every 
one  must  be  fully  convinced  and  satisfied  of  the  false 
and  unworthy  charge. 

"  The  answers  of  Washington  to  the  addresses  are 
generally  without  date :  scarcely  an  instance  of  date. 
Some  of  the  addresses  and  answers  are  both  without 
date. 

"  As  to  the  difference  of  the  date  of  Bishops  Coke 
and  Asbury's  address,  as  published  in  the  Arminian 
Magazine,  May  19,  and  as  published  in  the  above-men- 
tioned book,  &c..  May  29,  it  might  have  been  a  typo- 
graphical error,  otherwise  the  original  draught  might 
have  been  written  in  Philadelphia,  where  the  conference 
sat  the  18th  of  May — and  the  conference  sat  in  New- 
York  the  2Sth.  At  New- York  they  probably  dated  it 
the  29th,  and  Brother  Dickens  might  have  printed  from 
the  draught  made  in  Philadelphia,  dated  the  19th.  The 
Magazine  was  published  in  Philadelphia. 
"Yours,  &c., 

"EzEKiEL  Cooper."* 


*We  take  pleasure  in  adding,  that  having  had  frequent  interviews  with 
Mr.  Cooper,  and  free  conversations  on  the  subjects  of  this  work,  we  beheve 
we  are  warranted  in  saying  that  he  concurs  in  our  views.  To  this  intelli- 
gent and  able  man,  one  of  the  most  aged  of  our  itinerant  ministry  now  living, 
we  here  also  tender  our  thanks  for  several  interesting  facts  derived  from  the 
treasures  of  his  well-stored  memory  ;  and  also  from  some  private  manuscript 
notes  of  his  own.  The  concurrence  of  Mr.  Cooper  on  the  topics  here  dis- 
cussed is  the  more  valued,  as  all  who  are  acquainted  with  him  know  that, 
as  no  man  among  us  is  more  capable  of  forming  a  correct  judgment  respect- 
ing them,  or  has  paid  more  minute  and  constant  attention  to  them,  so  no  one 
is  less  disposed  unduly  to  exalt  the  episcopacy,  or  would  be  more  free  and 
fearless  to  expose  any  imposition  or  fraud,  if  discovered. 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         145 

Section  XVIII. — "  History  and  Mystenf  of 
Mr.  M'Caine's  Inconsistency. 

After  all  Mr.  M'Caine's  denunciations  of  the  name 
of  bishop,  and  of  the  episcopal  office  among  us,  he  thus 
concludes,  pp.  70-72. 

"  Let  the  local  ministers  and  the  laity  be  represented 
in  the  legislative  department  of  the  church.  On  the 
other  points  which  we  have  mentioned  above,  w^e  place, 
comparatively,  no  stress.  We  are  not  tenacious  of 
them.  We  are  willing,  if  it  should  be  thought  best,  to 
relinquish  any,  or  all  of  them.  But  representation  from 
the  local  ministry  and  laity,  by  the  help  of  God,  we  will 
never  rehnquish."  Now  one  of  "  the  other  'points''  men- 
tioned above  was, — "  Let  the  name  of  bishop,  and  the 
episcopal  office  as  it  now  exists  among  us,  be  put  away 
for  ever."  Yet,  founded  in  falsehood,  in  imposture,  and 
in  fraud,  as  he  represents  these  to  have  been,  and  dis- 
graceful and  contemptible  almost  beyond  expression,  he 
is  nevertheless  "not  tenacious"  of  their  being  "put 
away,"  provided  the  laity  and  the  local  ministry,  of 
whom  he  is  one,  may  be  admitted  into  a  higher  state 
of  participation  with  this  base  concern !  Is  Mr.  M'Caine 
sincere  ?  Does  he  really  mean,  after  all  he  has  said, 
that  if  admitted  into  the  General  Conference,  he  w^ould 
not  be  "  tenacious"  of  "  doing  away  the  name  of  bishop 
and  the  episcopal  office,  as  it  now  exists  among  us" — or 
does  he  say  this,  lest  by  saying  otherwise  "  at  this  junc- 
ture" he  might  "  dash  from"  Ms  "lips  the  cup  of  sweets?"* 

*  This  part  of  Mr.  M'Caine's  work  has  been  noticed  by  another  writer,  in 
the  following  terms  of  strong  rebuke  : — "  We  must  say,  that  if  he  believes  all 
that  he  has  written  in  the  previous  part  of  his  book,  and  would  be  satisfied 
with  this,  he  oflfers  a  base  and  disgraceful  compromise.  If  we  believed,  as 
he  asserts,  that  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  origin- 
ated in  falsehood,  and  has  been  perpetuated  by  fraud  and  forgery,  we  would 
disdain  to  make  any  compromise  at  all  witJi  the  authors  of  it :  we  would  be 
satisfied  with  nothing  which  did  not  go  lo  overthrow  the  whole  establish- 
ment, and  wipe  from  the  remembrance  of  all  men,  this  foul  blot  on  the  charac- 
ter of  Methodism." — Dr.  T.  E.  Bond's  Appeal. 

10 


146         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

But  a  still  more  extraordinary  "  mystery"  of  incon- 
sistency remains  to  be  developed.  Mr.  M'Caine  states 
in  his  preface,  page  5,  as  one  of  the  reasons  for  his  pub- 
lication, that  he  thinks  the  "  exposure"  he  has  made 
"  will  tend  much  to  lessen,  if  it  will  not  totally  over- 
come, the  opposition  of  travelling  preachers  to  repre- 
sentation." That  is,  to  the  representation  of  the  local 
preachers  and  laity  in  the  General  Conference. 

Now  the  reader  will  please  to  observe,  that  for  many 
years  past,  a  large  portion  of  the  travelling  preachers 
have  been  desirous  to  effect  some  diminution  of  the 
episcopal  prerogative,  by  vesting  in  the  annual  confer- 
ences some  voice  in  the  selection  of  the  presiding  elders. 
This  Mr.  M'Caine  knew.  Yet  during  the  very  period 
in  which  he  was  engaged  in  preparing  his  book,  in 
order,  it  would  seem,  to  "  lessen,  if  not  totally  to  over- 
come," episcopal  opposition,  too,  to  the  representation 
of  the  local  preachers,  he  made  a  communication,  in  a 
way  to  reach  episcopal  ears,  that  if  he  might  take  the 
liberty  of  expressing  all  his  mind,  the  probability  would 
be  greater  for  the  continua?ice  of  the  exercise  of  this 
prerogative  from  a  local  representation  than  without  it. 
And  why  ?  Because,  in  his  opinion,  affectio7i  and  vene- 
ration for  EPISCOPAL  men  might,  and  no  doubt  would, 
lead  a  local  representation  to  swpiiort  a  measure  which 
they  had  no  immediate  and  direct  interest  in  opposing ! 
Thus,  by  "  exposure"  of  episcopacy  and  of  episcopal 
men,  Mr.  M'Caine  exerts  himself  on  one  side,  ("  can- 
didly" too,  he  assures  us,)  to  lessen,  if  not  totally  to 
overcome,  the  opposition  of  travelling  preachers  to  the 
representation  of  local  preachers.  And,  at  the  same 
time,  on  the  other  side,  he  endeavours  to  convince  epis- 
copal men  that  the  representation  of  local  preachers 
will  tend  to  confirm  and  to  perpetuate  their  prerogative  : 
and  this,  too,  not  on  the  ground  of  reason  or  argument, 
but  from  the  affection  and  veneration  of  the  local  preach- 
ers for  episcopal  men.  So  that,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr. 
10-^ 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         147 

M'Caine,  this  was  the  return  which  those  said  travelling 
preachers  would,  " no  doubt''  receive  from  those  same 
local  brethren  who  had  been  labouring  to  induce  them 
to  assist  the  said  local  brethren  to  get  into  General 
Conference.  On  all  this  we  shall  leave  the  reader  to 
make  his  own  comments.  The  facts,  we  apprehend, 
will  not  be  denied.  But  if  Mr.  M'Caine's  opinion  be 
correct,  how  it  is  calculated  to  "  lessen,  if  not  totally  to 
overcome,"  opposition  to  the  representation  of  local 
preachers,  on  the  part  of  those  travelling  preachers,  at 
least,  who  have  been  desirous  of  effecting  some  diminu- 
tion of  this  episcopal  prerogative,  is  to  us,  we  confess, 
a  "  mystery." 


Section  XIX. — Union  Society  of  Baltimore  ;  Conclusion. 

Mr.  M'Caine  states,  p.  4,  that  "  the  result  of  his  in- 
vestigation was  read  before  the  Union  Society  of  reform- 
ers in  Baltimore,  and  the  writer  was  requested  to  print 
it  for  the  information  of  his  brethren."  Of  what  num- 
ber or  persons  the  Union  Society  of  Baltimore  consists, 
we  are  not  informed.  Some  of  the  individuals  who  com- 
pose it  we  know.  And  we  are  unwilling  to  believe  that 
they  could  have  deliberately  and  understandingly  sanc- 
tioned and  recommended  such  a  publication.  Our  hope 
therefore  is,  either  that  the  members  of  that  society 
were  not  all  present  when  Mr.  M'Caine's  manuscript 
was  read ; — or  they  did  not  hear  the  whole  of  it ;— or 
they  did  not  all  approve  of  it ; — or  they  had  not  a  fair 
opportunity  of  weighing  and  examining  it,  and  have 
thought  differently  of  it  since  it  was  printed :  but  if  dis- 
appointed in  all  these  hopes,  then  we  persuade  ourselves 
that  they  will  at  least  give  this  defence  a  fair  and  candid 
consideration ;  and  if  convinced  that  Mr.  M'Caine  has 


148         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

led  them  into  error,  that  they  will  frankly  and  honour- 
ably declare  it. 

Have  the  Union  Society  of  Baltimore  forgotten  that 
the  remains  of  Bishop  Asbury  were  disinterred,  and  re- 
moved from  Virginia,  and  deposited  in  their  city,  as  a 
place  peculiarly  dear  to  him  ?    Have  they  forgotten  the 
solemn  rites  with  which,  by  the  joint  act  of  the  General 
Conference,  and  of  the  Baltimore  Society,  they  were 
placed  under  the  pulpit  of  the  Eutaw  church,  as  in  a 
sacred  and  chosen  asylum,  where  his  ashes  might  rest 
in  honoured  peace,  under  their  affectionate  and  gene- 
rous protection  1    With  what  feelings  then  could  such 
of  our  brethren  as  may  have  sanctioned  the  pubhca- 
tion  of  Mr.  M'Caine's  book  stand  in  that  very  pulpit, 
over  those  ashes,  to  preach  to  those  whom  they  know 
to  hold  the  name  of  that  venerable  man  in  so  much 
fiHal  love   and   reverence?     Can  it  be   supposed  that 
their  hearers  could  avoid  the  association  of  the  book 
the  preacher,  and  the  injured  ''father  V  And  could  such 
an  association  be  either  agreeable  or  profitable  ?   Ought 
not  the  ashes  of  that  father  first  to  be  taken  up  and 
given  to  the  winds:    or  be  sent  to  the  Potter's  field, 
where  strangers  lie  in  peace  ?    Or  at  least  be  returned 
to  their  resting  place  in  Virginia,   whence  they  were 
solicited  ?  And  will  not  a  voice  from  his  tomb  be  other- 
wise  continually   reproaching   the   Union   Society  of 
Baltimore ;  or  their  proceeding  be  a  standing  reproach 
to  him  ?^ 

*  Since  the  above  was  prepared  for  the  press,  we  have  seen  a  publication 
in  which  it  is  stated  that  no  vote  of  recommendation  to  publish  Mr.  M'Caine's 
work  had  passed  the  Union  Society.  This  is  stated  on  the  authority  of 
the  president  and  secretary  ;  and  it  is  added,  that  Mr.  M'Caine  also  "  declared 
that  he  had  no  allusion  to  a  vote  of  the  Union  Society."  We  will  not  charge 
Mr.  M'Caine  with  a  design  to  mislead  his  readers,  or  to  give  currency  to 
his  book  by  representing  it  as  sanctioned  by  the  Union  Society  of  Baltimore. 
Nor  will  we  impute  to  the  officers  of  that  society  the  littleness  of  descending 
to  the  quibble  that  no  such  "  vote"  passed  the  society,  if  the  work  had  been 
in  any  manner  sanctioned  by  that  body.  But  that  such  of  Mr.  M'Caine's 
readers  as  were  not  in  the  secret  have  understood  him  to  allude  to  the  Union 
Society  before  whom  the  result  of  his  investigations  was  read,  as  requesting 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         149 

We  have  now  performed  in  some  respects  a  painful, 
in  others  a  pleasurable  task.  The  investigations  to 
which  it  has  led  us  have  occupied  our  close  and  prayer- 
ful attention.  If  the  result  be  as  satisfactory  to  others 
as  it  has  been  to  our  own  mind,  the  Methodist  reader 
will  continue  to  bless  God  that  his  name  has  been  asso- 
ciated with  those  of  Wesley,  of  Coke,  and  of  Asbury ; 
and  with  the  names  of  those  excellent "  fathers,"  through 
whose  labours,  and  the  "institutions  received  from" 
them,  with  the  Divine  blessing,  the  foundations  were 
laid  of  that  great  work  of  God  which  has  been  spread 
over  these  lands.  And  with  regard  to  our  own  Asbury, 
particularly,  he  will  confidently  and  triumphantly  con- 
clude, in  the  language  of  Mr.  Snethen  on  the  occasion 
of  his  death, — "  Whatever  of  scandal  may  hereafter 
attach  to  us,  neither  we  nor  our  children  shall  have  to 
bear  the  reproach  of  crimes  in  our  human  leader.  Few 
among  those  who  have  followed  in  the  same  track, 
have  excelled  him  in  any  of  the  qualities  which  consti- 
tute a  good  man; — in  the  union  of  them  all  none  have 

SURPASSED    HIM." 

him  to  print  it,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Indeed  we  do  not  see  how  any  other 
rational  construction  can  be  put  on  the  sentence  :  "  The  result  of  his  investi- 
gation was  read  before  the  Union  Society  of  reformers  in  Baltimore  ;  and  the 
writer  was  requested  to  print  it  for  the  information  of  his  brethren,"  page  4. 
If  in  this,  however,  we  have  been  mistaken,  and  there  be  no  "  mystery"  in 
this  thing,  then  our  remarks  are  to  be  applied,  not  to  the  society  as  such, 
but  to  the  individuals  concerned. 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         151 


APPENDIX. 


No.  I. 

RESPECTING   DR.   COKe's   LETTER   TO   BISHOP   WHITE. 

Having  received  an  extract  from  Dr.  Coke's  letter  to  the  Rev.  Ezekiel 
Cooper  on  this  subject,  but  too  late  for  insertion  in  the  body  of  this  work,  we 
introduce  it  here. 

For  two  years  or  more,  previously  to  1792,  Mr.  O'Kelly  had  excited 
much  disaffection  in  Virginia ;  particularly  in  the  important  and  extensive 
district  over  which  he  then  presided.  It  was,  indeed,  a  matter  of  contro- 
versy at  that  period,  whether  he  and  the  preachers  who  adhered  to  him 
were  in  "  the  union,"  as  he  expressed  it ;  although  his  name  was  regularly 
continued  on  the  Minutes  as  a  presiding  elder  till  1792,  when  he  withdrew. 
In  1792  our  General  Conferences  were  first  established.  Previously  to  that 
time  we  had  none,  except  that  of  1784.  Dr.  Coke  was  of  opinion  that  some 
general  and  permanent  bond  of  union  was  imperiously  needed.  Mr.  Asbury 
was  of  the  same  opinion.  The  "  council"  was  proposed  as  an  expedient ; 
but  not  being  found  to  answer  the  purpose  it  was  discontinued,  after  only  two 
sessions,  in  1789  and  1790.  In  that  measure  Dr.  Coke  did  not  concur. 
The  proceedings  of  Mr.  O'Kelly  produced  great  agitation.  Special  pains 
were  taken  to  enlist  Dr.  Colte  in  his  views,  and  to  produce  disaffection  be- 
tween him  and  Bishop  Asbury.  Dr.  Coke  became  alarmed  for  the  safety 
of  the  connection ;  and  in  that  state  of  mind,  without  consulting  his  col- 
league, resolved  to  ascertain  whether  a  union  could  be  effected  with  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church,  on  such  terms  as  he  conceived  would  secure  the 
integrity  and  the  rights  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  He  was  also 
under  an  impression,  as  before  stated,  that  such  a  junction  would  greatly  en- 
large our  field  of  action  ;  and  that  myriads  would  attend  our  ministry  in  con- 
sequence of  it  who  were  at  that  time  much  prejudiced  against  us.  All  these 
things,  "unitedly  considered,"  led  him  to  write  to  Bishop  White  in  1791, 
and  to  meet  him  and  Dr.  Magaw  in  Philadelphia.  This  he  states  in  his 
letter  to  Mr.  Cooper.  An  extract  of  that  letter  is  now  before  us.  It  is 
dated  "Near  Leeds,  Yorkshire,  Jan.  29,  1808;"  and  is  in  the  form  of  an 
address  to  the  General  Conference.  The  correctness  of  the  extract  is  cer- 
tified by  Mr.  Cooper,  as  taken  by  himself  from  the  original,  in  Dr.  Coke's 
hand-writing.  In  this  letter,  after  adverting  to  the  circumstances  above 
named,  and  to  the  labour  and  fatigue  with  which,  a  short  time  before  he 
wrote  to  Bishop  White,  he  had  prevailed  on  James  O'Kelly  and  the  preach- 
ers who  adhered  to  him,  to  submit  to  the  decision  of  a  General  Conference, 
Dr.  Coke  replies  to  the  following  question  :  "  If  he  did  not  believe  the  epis- 
copal ordination  of  Mr.  Asbury  valid,  why  he  had  ordained  him  ?"  To  this, 
he  says,  "  I  answer  : 

"  1.  I  never,  since  I  could  reason  on  those  things,  considered  the  doctrine 
of  the  uninterrupted  apostolical  succession  of  bishops  as  at  all  valid  or  true. 


152         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

"  2,  I  am  of  our  late  venerable  father,  Mr.  Wesley's  opinion,  that  the 
order  of  bishops  and  presbyters  is  one  and  the  same. 

"  3,  I  believe  that  the  episcopal  form  of  church  government  is  the  best  in 
the  world,  when  the  episcopal  power  is  under  due  regulations  and  responsi- 
bility. 

"  4.  I  believe  that  it  is  well  to  follow  the  example  of  the  primitive  church, 
as  exemplified  in  the  word  of  God,  by  setting  apart  persons  for  great  minis- 
terial purposes  by  the  imposition  of  hands  :  but  especially  those  who  are 
appointed  for  offices  of  the  first  rank  in  the  church. 

"  From  all  I  have  advanced,  you  may  easily  perceive,  my  dear  brethren, 
that  I  do  not  consider  the  imposition  of  hands  on  the  one  hand,  as  essentially 
necessary  for  any  office  in  the  church  ;  nor  do  I,  on  the  other  hand,  think 
that  the  repetition  of  the  imposition  of  hands  for  the  same  office,  when  im- 
portant circumstances  require  it,  is  at  all  improper. 

"  If  it  be  granted  that  my  plan  of  union  with  the  old  Episcopal  Church 
was  desirable,  {which  now  I  think  was  not  so,  though  I  most  sincerely  be- 
lieved it  to  be  so  at  that  time,)  then,  if  the  plan  could  not  have  been  accom- 
plished without  a  repetition  of  the  imposition  of  hands  for  the  same  office,  I 
did  believe,  and  do  now  believe,  and  have  no  doubt,  that  the  repetition  of  the 
imposition  of  hands  would  have  been  perfectly  justifiable  for  the  enlargement 
of  the  field  of  action,  &c.,  and  would  not,  by  any  means,  have  invalidated 
the  former  consecration  or  imposition  of  hands. 

"  Therefore  I  have  no  doubt  but  my  consecration  of  Bishop  Asbury  was 
perfectly  valid,  and  would  have  been  so  even  if  he  had  been  reconsecrated. 

"  I  never  did  apply  to  the  General  Convention,  or  any  other  convention, 
for  reconsecration.  I  never  intended  that  either  Bishop  Asbury  or  myself 
should  give  up  our  episcopal  office,  if  the  junction  were  to  take  place  !  but  I 
should  have  had  no  scruple  then,  nor  should  I  now,  if  the  junction  luere  de- 
sirable, to  have  submitted  to,  or  to  submit  to,  a  reimposition  of  hands,  in 
order  to  accomplish  a  great  object :  but  I  do  say  again,  I  do  not  now  believe 
such  a  junction  desirable. 

"  I  have  thus,  simply  and  candidly,  though  in  few  words,  told  you  my 
whole  mind  on  this  subject.  I  do  not  consider  my  solemn  engagements  to 
you  invalidated  by  any  thing  that  I  have  done,  or  you  have  done.  But  I 
charge  you  by  the  glory  of  God,  and  by  every  tie  of  love,  gratitude,  and 
candour,  that  you  take  no  step  which  may  injure  my  character.  And  now 
I  conclude  with  assuring  you  that  I  greatly  love  and  esteem  you  ;  that  it  is 
a  delight  to  me  to  pray  for  your  prosperity  :  and  that  I  am,  with  unfeigned 
esteem,  your  very  affectionate  brother  and  faithful  friend, 

"  T.  Coke." 

We  hope,  after  this,  to  hear  no  more  of  Dr.  Coke's  "  doubt''''  of  the  validity 
of  his  episcopal  ordination,  or  of  that  of  Bishop  Asbury ;  unless  our  modern 
race  of  writers  can  persuade  us  that  they  are  better  acquainted  with  the 
mind  of  Dr.  Coke  than  he  was  himself.  The  assertion  is  as  unfounded  as 
that  "  the  introduction  of  episcopacy  among  the  Methodists  in  the  United 
States  was  expressly  disapproved  and  forbidden  by  Mr.  Wesley ;"  or  that 
"  the  formation  of  the  present  plan  of  government  among  us  was  the  undi- 
vulged  project  of  a  few,  who,  meeting  in  secret  conclave,  excluded  the  junior 
members  even  of  their  own  body;"  or  that  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  have  ever  founded  their  episcopacy  on  the  ground  of  "  unin- 
terrupted succession  from  the  apostles  ;"  or  that  the  rejection  of  that  doctrine 


A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS.         153 

has  ever  been  "  struck  out"  of  our  Discipline.  Such  assertions  only  serve 
to  show  how  superficially  those  who  make  them  have  examined  the  subject ; 
or  how  servilely  they  copy  others.  We  should  regret  that  the  repeti- 
tion of  them  should  oblige  us  to  give  back  the  "  modest"  imputation  either  of 
"  ignorance,  or  want  of  candour." 


No.  II. 

A  COMMUNICATION   FROM   THE   REV.   N.   BANGS. 

Mv  Dear  Brother, 

Having  had  the  pleasure  of  hearing  you  read  your  manuscript  in  the 
"  Defence  of  our  Fathers,"  &c.,  against  the  attacks  of  the  Rev.  Alexander 
M'Caine,  I  take  this  opportunity  of  expressing  to  you  my  views  of  the  orders 
of  our  ministry.  This  I  can  do  the  more  readily,  because  I  have  already 
published  them  in  my  little  book  on  "  Methodist  Episcopacy,"  and  it  will 
also  give  me  an  opportunity  of  correcting  some  mistaken  opinions  which 
have  been  circulated,  not  much  to  the  credit  of  the  authors  of  them,  respect- 
ing my  views  on  this  subject.  Indeed,  I  have  been  represented  as  holding 
that  a  third  order  in  the  church  is  jure  divino,  or  of  divine  right,  without 
which,  of  course,  there  can  be  no  valid  ordinances.  That  this  is  an  entire 
misrepresentation  of  my  views,  will  appear  manifest  to  every  impartial  mind, 
from  the  following  quotations  from  my  book  on  the  subject  of  our  episcopacy. 

In  chapter  ii,  which  treats  of  "  Elders  and  of  their  duty,"  p.  35,  is  the 
following  sentence  :  "  I  shall  undertake  to  prove  that  the  body  of  elders,  in 
their  collective  capacity,  had  the  right  of  consecrating  ministers,  and  of  esta- 
blishing ordinances  for  the  government  of  the  church."  It  will  be  perceived 
that  this  sentence  contains  the  main  proposition  which  I  set  myself  to  prove 
and  to  sustain  throughout  that  chapter  ;  and  among  other  proofs  cited  in 
support  of  this  doctrine,  is  the  following  from  Stillingfleet  :  "  Before  the 
jurisdiction  of  presbyters  was  restrained  by  mutual  consent,  the  presbyters 
enjoyed  the  same  liberty  that  the  presbyters  among  the  Jews  did,  of  ordain- 
ing other  presbyters,  by  that  power  they  were  invested  in  or  with,  at  their 
own  ordination,"  p.  40.  And  the  whole  reasoning  in  this  chapter  is  de- 
signed to  show  that  consecration  by  presbyters  is  Scriptural,  with  a  view  to 
vindicate  Mr.  Wesley's  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke  as  a  superintendent,  and 
others  as  elders,  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  How,  then,  I  may 
ask,  could  I  have  held  at  the  same  time  that  a  third  order  was  essential  to 
constitute  a  gospel  church  ■?  I  appeal  to  every  man  that  has  read  my  book 
■with  candour,  that  has  consulted  the  pieces  on  this  subject  subsequently  pub- 
lished in  the  Methodist  Magazine,  of  which  I  acknowledge  myself  the  author, 
for  the  correctness  of  the  above  statement. 

It  is  true  I  did  believe,  as  I  believe  still,  that  in  the  primitive  church,  in 
the  age  immediately  succeeding  the  apostles,  there  was  an  order — (I  use  the 
word  order  merely  for  convenience,  to  avoid  circumlocution,  meaning  thereby 
nothing  more  than  that  they  were  invested  by  consent  of  the  eldership  with 
a  power  to  preside  over  the  flock  of  Christ,  and  to  discharge  other  duties 
not  so  convenient  for  the  presbyters  to  discharge) — of  ministers  denomi- 
nated evangelists ;  that  these  were  itinerating  superintendents,  (or  bishops, 
if  any  like  the  term  better,)  having  a  general  oversight  of  the  whole  church ; 


154         A  DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS. 

and  that  these  are  very  nearly  resembled  by  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  But  that  these  were  an  order  of  ministers  by  divine 
appointment,  so  essential  that  there  can  be  no  valid  ordination  or  ordinances 
without  them,  is  a  sentiment  I  neither  noio  nor  ever  believed.  In  proof  of 
this,  see  "  Methodist  Episcopacy,"  p.  56,  where  are  the  following  words  : 
"  It  moreover  appears  highly  probable,  that  whatever  authority  these  itine- 
rating evangelists  possessed,  they  derived  it  by  delegation  from  the  body  of 
presbyters  ;  to  whom  belonged  the  original  right  of  modifying  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church,  as  they  saw  it  expedient  for  the  benefit  of  the  commu- 
nity, provided  they  did  not  transcend  the  bounds  of  their  authority  by  trans- 
gressing a  known  precept  of  Christ." 

As  to  the  account  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  published  first  in 
Martindale's  Dictionary,  and  afterward  in  Buck's  Theological  Dictionary, 
which  I  prepared  under  the  sanction  of  the  Book  Committee  before  you  were 
associated  with  me  in  the  Book  Concern,  I  consider  it  a  simple  statement  of 
a  matter  of  fact,  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  acknowledges  three 
orders  of  ministers,  deacons,  elders,  and  bishops,  which  fact  certamly  no  one 
can  contradict,  still  understanding  the  word  order,  when  applied  to  bishops, 
as  above  defined.  If  any  choose  to  say  that  we  acknowledge  two  orders 
only,  and  a  superior  minister  possessing  a  delegated  jurisdiction,  chiefly  of 
an  executive  character,  he  has  my  full  consent  ;  I  will  not  dispute  about 
words.  That  Mr.  Wesley  did,  with  the  aid  of  other  presbyters,  invest  Dr. 
Coke  with  fuller  powers,  as  a  Methodist  superintendent,  than  he  did  those 
whom  he  denominated  elders,  and  that  he  intended  to  establish  a  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  among  the  Methodists  in  America,  I  think  you  have  fully 
proved  ;  and  I  heartily  wish  you  success  in  your  undertaking  :  for  I  think  it 
a  sacred  duty  we  owe  to  the  "  venerable  dead"  to  vindicate  them  against 
such  invidious,  unprovoked,  and  unmanly  attacks,  as  those  of  the  author  of 
the  "  History  and  Mystery  of  Methodist  Episcopacy ;"  a  title  as  quaint  as 
the  contents  of  the  book  are  manifestly  unjust  and  erroneous. 

New-York,  Nov.,  1827.  N.  Bangs. 


No.  III. 

THE   MINUTE   TO  OBEY   MR.  WESLEY. 

We  have  shown  that  by  leaving  Mr.  Wesley's  name  off  the  Minutes,  was 
simply  meant  the  rescinding  of  the  minute  of  the  conference  of  1784,  to 
obey  him  in  matters  belonging  to  church  government ;  and  also  the  peculiar 
circumstances  in  which  that  act  took  place.  With  regard  to  the  conference 
of  1787,  by  whom  that  minute  was  rescinded,  Mr.  Snethen  said,  if  he  might 
be  permitted  to  show  his  opinion,  he  should  "  applaud  them  for  renouncing 
the  obligation."     Answer  to  J.  O'Kelly,  p.  18. 


Date  Due 

,«««»«««»^ 

mm 

'  '^'"'mmffsm 

k 

,„,«--.«««*«^ 

r 

imsmmm 

^gfins^sm 

P**' 

-w«V!iS»M«»W 

^^ 

f 

